Reuters: Bill Would Put Net Song Swappers in Jail

[NashVegas]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Internet users who allow others to copy songs from their hard drives could face prison time under legislation introduced by two Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday.

...
Sponsored by Michigan Rep. John Conyers and California Rep. Howard Berman, the bill would make it easier to slap criminal charges on Internet users who copy music, movies and other copyrighted files over "peer-to-peer" networks.


Oh yeah, let's whore for those industry donations!

When are we going to get smart and have a nationwide major-label boycott?


edit:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=3103495

[mjb4]

1. Taliban USA -- is farting illegal yet!

these white folks are not going to put 12 year old white girls in jail.

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. Actually,

John Conyers, the prime sponsor of the bill, is not one of those "white folks"

[geomon]

73. Stealing

is the issue how would you feel if someone stole your shit.

Anyone who thinks that intellectual property is not property is a bit narrow-minded.

[mefoolonhill]

80. files

Some government we've got, eh? Kicking ass on teenage file-swappers and Martha Stewart while Saddam and Osama run free....

[bluestateguy]

2. Geez!

Way to turn on younger voters to the Democratic Party. I can understand Berman given where he represents, but Conyers? Is the auto industry suddenly against file sharing?

I support the provision barring videotaping of movies in the theater.

[NashVegas]

55. Conyers -- Michigan

Think Detroit. Think Motown. At least that's the only thing I can think of.

[rocketdem]

3. jail is a bit much to say the least

But it is (and should be) illegal (and yes, I know that this is an unpopular sentiment).

Jail is ludicrous but fines would be completely appropriate.

[Occulus]

26. Nope.

Sorry. This has been going on since the '80s. They did nothing about it then, when we had to use tapes and dual decks.

It's called "establishing a common practice" and they damn well know they shouldn't be able to get away with it. They did nothing back then, they ought not be doing anything now.

[rocketdem]

78. Nope

Making a few tapes for yourself, even for a few friends, is not what's going on here. This is the wholesale theft of intellectual property on a grand scale of millions of copies.

One cannot justify a crime based upon the failure to prosecute every instance of occurance.

Where does it end? Right now, it's music. Next, it will be books. Academic work after that. Anything at all that can be reduced to bytes will be thrown out and into the open market for free.

When this happens there will be no more professional musicians other than those who use recordings to hype their (drastically scaled back) live shows. There will be no professional authors since they'll no longer be able to make a living from their work. Scholarship will continue because that is not a big market item, but it too will be scaled back because there will have to be less total revenue even for that.

By trading music, you are stealing somebody else's work. Period. You are depriving them of their right to make a living. Just because millions of people have done it does not make it right no matter what self-justifying tone you choose to take in your argument. And if nothing is done to thwart this crime, we will all end up living in a far grayer, far duller world.

[Nambe]

4. Maybe all 60 million of us should turn ourselves in.

Beats looking for a job.

Now all they have to do is make us stop making music CDs.

[MostlyBlackCat2]

30. THAT would make them reexamine their priorities

I'd start file swapping just to join ya! Then we could all protest the food and demand vegan meals too, just to throw a wrench in the works. Imagine jails overloaded with computer literate music geeks! And I bet LOTS of small label bands would be willing to show up andshow their support too. This could be such an awesome action. :-)

[AntiCoup2K4]

5. This bullshit is WAAAAY out of hand.

Is listening to the radio or watching eMpTyV illegal??

Is using a fucking VCR or Tivo illegal??

If you want to take it as far as these idiots, will they then arrest you for inviting friends over if you rented a video?? After all, your friends didn't pay for it.

Bottom line - these corporations are FASCIST. If they had any music worth stealing, I would do so just to spite them. :grr:

[bluestateguy]

6. They'll go after Tivo next

They will sneak commercial messages into the script somehow.

[NashVegas]

10. TiVo, VCR - self-destruct DVDs

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the RIAA is wondering how they can make destructible CDs, too. Copy and fade.

[Atlant]

12. This experiment is under way with DVDs.

The (very cheap) DVD comes to you sealed in an air-tight bag.

Once opened, the reflective layer begins to corrode, rendering the
DVD unplayable after a few days (~48 hours).

It's like the return of DIVX, but without any need for special
players or software support.

Atlant

[chenGOD]

18. I don't think these will ever fly...

I remember reading about these a couple of months ago. As I recall they were marketing them towards renters of DVDs. But surely Blockbuster makes a killing off the late charges?

So i think that Blockbuster will probably never stock these, and there goes that. Good for maybe critics or what have you?

[Atlant]

23. I don't think they'll fly either, but the experiment *IS* underway.

(And you just never can be sure about misunderestimating how dumb are some.)

Atlant

[chenGOD]

38. Ah yes..the dumbness factor....

should never be undermistimated.

[CTLawGuy]

24. Universal Studios tried to stop the production of VCRs

in the early 80's for the very same reasons they wanted to shut down Napster. It took a Supreme Court ruling, saying you can't blame a machine for how people act, in order for us to have VCRs today.

The case is called Sony v. Universal Studios (1984)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=464&invol=417

[JaySherman]

7. Are we writing our representatives folks?

Drive it home to them that if they go along with this, they lose that 18-25 vote.

[geomon]

72. write to them and say??

let us steal shit that does not belong to us???

[maggrwaggr]

8. proof that corporations are now running the country

Making laws.

[chadm]

70. exactly

anybody interested in switching to Green?

[Aaron]

9. Wrote Conyers and my Reps.

I think Berman is probably a lost cause on any copyright/IP issue.

[Atlant]

11. I'll take the unpopular stance.

> Bill Would Put Internet Song Swappers in Jail

For the eggregious cases, that's exactly where they belong.

Fundamentally, there is very little difference between the person who
steals an 18-wheeler full of the latest hit CDs and gives or trades
them away and the person who converts those same CDs to MP3 files
and gives or trades them away (except that 18-wheeler probably only
contains half a million CDs whereas the file swapper may have "stolen"
the equivalent of millions of CDs by the time they're done "sharing"
music on the Internet).

Both of these folks are crooks, and the wholesale theft of
the copyrighted work of others by either ought to be punished.

I realize a lot of you don't see yourselves as the equivalent of
the truck-jacker because you're only downloading a few CDs for your
personal use. You're right; you probably don't deserve jail, but
you're still a crook, albeit a penny-ante one. Your crime is more
the equivalent of shoplifting a few CDs from the local music store
(although the loss is a bit less since nobody paid the 50 cents
or so per CD for the plastic that you didn't physically steal).

And whether or not the RIAA is "ripping you off" in some way doesn't
absolve YOUR crime. If you feel put out, go after the RIAA. Or
boycott CDs. But their crime doesn't excuse your crime.

Atlant

(Full disclosure: I make my living selling digital bits that ship
on CDs so I take all this "Copyright" stuff very seriously.)

[AP]

14. I'd jail the guy who was running a profitable counterfiet company

but I'd never jail the kid who has a couple hundred downloads which he occassionally burns for friends.

It costs society thousands to prosecute and jail criminals. It's just a big public subsidy for the recording industry to shift all the costs of protecting their antiquated business practices and technology to the state. Consider proportionality. You spend 60K to prosecute and jail one kid who cost you 4 dollars (OK, OK, so there's a deterrent effect, but I wonder how much of one).

Clearly, resources would be better spent if the recording industry simply employed new technology and changed their business model.

[chenGOD]

17. I'll agree with your unpopular stance...

:)


eom

[Chovexani]

19. Meanwhile...

...Ken Lay sips tequila in the Cayman Islands.

Glad to see our Congresscritters have their priorities together (whoring for big business $$$).

[Tigermoose]

21. I'm a writer (not for income), and I think

that all copyright for the arts is bullshit. For me, its just enough to be writing and that some people are reading my creations. If copyright went away, I think the quality of the available artistic creations would improve. Less horseshit, more pearls. I'm hoping the internet could help be the distribution medium. Right now, copyright laws and corporations are strangling any decent chance of quality innovation.

Copyright is bullshit to basic human rights. You are outlawing my ability to communicate to someone else? Oh..land of the free! Music and writing and such is just the arrangement of words and notes, or in digital form 0s and 1s. Stealing? I hardly think so....its only stealing because your government currently says so, which is the best argument you can make at this point. But at an essential, natural rights level, copyright law is bullshit.

p.s...and I think the idea of plagiarism and citing everything is out of hand in academia. All knowledge is universal and to be shared imho.

p.s.s. And the only reason I think an artist should bother signing his name to a piece of art is so that his fans can more easily identify his creations.

[Atlant]

22. You might think differently if...

> I'm a writer (not for income), and I think that all copyright for
> the arts is bullshit.

You might think differently if your income depended upon getting
paid for your writing.

Atlant

[Tigermoose]

34. But since my artistic ethics keep me from whoring

I make sure I am trained in other fields as well. Anyways, specialization sucks and produces shitty art.

[Atlant]

35. Nearly every professional field has "intellectual property"

Nearly every professional field has "intellectual property".

If you're in a profession and don't think so, ask your boss.
Or give away the company's secrets and see what happens.

(Education may be the one professional field that doesn't, but
the research side of Universities are full of well-guarded I.P..)

Atlant

[Tigermoose]

62. Sure, because our society is based on money.

Medieval society was based on religion and most works were anonymous.

Just because everyone's doing it doesn't make it right :)

I will say, however, that it is very noble to follow the laws of one's country, but I make the distinction that that is the reason not to file share, and not because of some kind of pseudo-capitalist ethic based upon the worship of money.

[chenGOD]

39. Who says you have to specialize?

When you write, do you write about only one topic over and over again?
Doubtful.

Since when is wanting to be able to make a living out of doing something you love "whoring"?


I dunno about you, but if I had the chance to make a living off strictly performing/composing music, I'd jump all over it.

[Tigermoose]

59. And if your income depended on what you produced, you would

most likely produce what your editor/publisher told you would sell because its currently "hot." Or you would starve and start working at J. C. Penney selling suits to the suits.

[chenGOD]

77. So Stephen King....

has been "hot" for years?

Remeber what I said, "If you had the chance to make your living from doing something you love"...something you love, not something your editor tells you to write.


Face it, stealing by any other name is still stealing.

[Tigermoose]

82. Gee...one example makes the rule?

I don't think so. S. King and J.K.Rowling are rare examples, and even their fiction could be labelled as formulaic.

Stealing? By whose definition? Society? Government? God? Yours? We're talking about the arrangement of words and music, or in the case of files, 0s and 1s. The only reason you consider it stealing is because that's what you've always been told. By what Natural Right does anyone have to declare what comes out of their mouth or penned in their hand cannot be spread to others? Knowledge cannot be "stolen." That's why copyright laws are bs.

[chenGOD]

85. Knowledge is not in question here.

When I create a piece of music, it's not something that anyone knew before I created it. The same with anything that you write.
This is a piece of property. You know. Like a house. Or a car. Except this is a song (or in your case, a book, or perhaps a magazine article). I am not denying my music to anyone, but I'm choosing not to give it away for free (although I do give plenty of music away for free too). Stealing seems to be a pretty much global concept, as all the countries I've visted seem to have similar attitudes with regard to unlawful gain. They might have different ways of dealing with them (cutting off of hands anyone?) but they all regard unlawful gain of an item (be it data or a TV) as wrong.

Ok Stephen King, JK Rowling, John Grisham, Tom Clancy, William Burroughs, Aldous Huxley, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Philip K Dick, Tom Robbins etc etc the list goes on were all formulaic writers who just happened to be better at writing to form than others.


I download songs. But I don't try and justify it as not stealing.Here's an idea, next time you want to move, tell the owners of the house you want to move into that you just want to try it out for a year without paying, but you fully intend to pay if you like it. What natural right does anyone have to deny you shelter? Shelter is a basic human right, that's why property/rental fees are BS.

[geomon]

74. explain??

.

[Tigermoose]

76. Specialization limits the boundaries of the mind.

You get caught up in a particular way of thinking attuned to what you specialize in. So, when you write or perform, your work is pedantic and flat - lacking the depth that a "renaissance man" can bring.

[GreenArrow]

25. You are absolutely fucking right!

It's great to hear someone else say it, too.

Art predates commerce. There is no such thing as "intellectual property." That's a bogus construct developed to commodify things that are, in essence, part of continum that is shared by all humanity. There is truly, nothing new under the sun.

What a money sick world this is.

[NashVegas]

29. Copyrights and the Recording Industry

Before Mr. Edison made the product of musicians readily available for the masses, most musicians made their living through the patronage system and/or performance. I wonder what kind of copyrights they had back then?

If someone thought you were good, they'd pay you to perform. They'd commission your work. This effectively put as much a stranglehold on popular music distribution as the labels have today, but it also helped insure that the popular artists of the day actually had the goods. IE, the patrons weren't looking for a return on their financial backing as much as major ego gratification. 'Ooh, milord what great taste you have.'

The folk scene has been returning to the patronage system already. People contract with a musician to literally come play in their living room, then charge their friends cover. Yes, they do look for return on capital, but again, there's the ego factor involved.

on edit:

There was another point I wanted to make in all this. Danny Goldberg, very well respected industry figure, recently published a book about how the Left/Dems have abandoned America's youth, by way of being snobs about youth culture. What Goldberg totally misses is the fact that artistic entertainment is not the culture of today's youth; his generation has refused to accept any contribution from youth that doesn't neatly mesh with Boomers' tastes. It's no wonder the kids turned to the Internet. Today's youth own the 'net the same way the Boomers owned rock and roll. And the entertainment industry that fed Boomer culture is doing everything it can to take it out of the kids' hands.

[Tigermoose]

33. Yep...but we won't return to the patronage system

because we have the Internet. (for mediums capable of being transferred digitally)

[CaptAhab]

32. Liberty and Justice for All...

>> Bill Would Put Internet Song Swappers in Jail
> For the eggregious cases, that's exactly where they belong.

Ever heard of due process? Do you realize that this bill will cause file sharers to be automatically jailed, regardless of what they're sharing? Thank you, Mr. Ashcroft, for sharing your views with us, but we prefer to keep America the bastion of freedom it has always been.

[Atlant]

36. I'm not John Ashcroft...

> Do you realize that this bill will cause file sharers to be
> automatically jailed, regardless of what they're sharing?

I'm not John Ashcroft and you might want to provide a citation to
back up that claim.

Atlant

[geomon]

75. please show me were it says that ...

this law would not involve a trial.

[Mithras61]

40. I tend to agree with you, but keep in mind

that the RIAA already gets a small surcharge for each and every CD sold, regardless of if it is "recordable" or not (even software houses have to buy their CDs somewhere}. That means that every one of my 200+ CD-Rs that I purchased this quarter alone funds the RIAA's attacks on people & software developers, even though I NEVER copy music onto them. I prefer to get what little music I listen to from Amazon (cheap prices, and I can get the Classics I want pretty easily... and by Classics I mean the three Bs, Handel, Haydn, etc.). All this has done for me is to cause me to get a little utility that checks if a recording is offered by an RIAA member, so I can avoid those purchases.

And yes, I am a developer of copyrighted materials...

[northzax]

45. actually, no they don't

they get a royalty for every "music" CD-R, not every CD-r or RW.

I just checked and in Canada the tax applies to all recordable digital media, not jsut those specifically dedicated to music.

http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq07.html#S7-13

[Mithras61]

48. Technically correct, but the price of "audio" CDs is

actually LESS than "data" CDs, which leads me to believe that the RIAA and CD-R makers/distributors know that ALL CD-Rs can be used for music, so they collect and distribute the royalties on ALL CD-Rs.

[Atlant]

49. That's not true either.

> which leads me to believe that the RIAA and CD-R makers/distributors
> know that ALL CD-Rs can be used for music

That's not true either. While your PC's CD burner will burn compatible
"Red Book Audio" onto a "data" CD-R, there are pure audio CD recorders
that won't work unless they're fed "Audio" CD-Rs; that is, they reject
"fee unpaid" "data" CD-Rs.

Atlant

[Mithras61]

53. So who buys these "pure audio" burners for their PC?

After all, it's the PC that is connected to the Internet that is the target for all the controversy...

[Atlant]

56. They're not PCs; they're sold as stand-alone audio products.

They're not PCs or PC add-ons; they're sold as stand-alone audio
roducts and connect to your stereo system. Phillips, at least,
used to sell one.

Atlant

[Mithras61]

58. So how does this relate to the story about song swappers...

and the paying of royalties for CD-Rs used in PCs?

The story was about people swapping files over the Internet, which the Phillips device you mentioned cannot do, and my claim was that data CD-Rs are likely paying the royalty based on the price vs. audio CD-Rs. The fact that a very (possibly extremely) small percentage of recording devices, and only ones that cannot be connected to PCs, bothers to distinguish between audio and data CD-Rs seems irrelevant.

[Atlant]

61. You're the one that claimed all CD-Rs were burdened with the RIAA fee

> So how does this relate to the story about song swappers and the
> paying of royalties for CD-Rs used in PCs

You're the one that claimed all CD-Rs were burdened with the RIAA fee,
but it doesn't appear to be true. I'd be happy to drop the tangent.

Atlant

[alarimer]

87. huh?

I use regular CD-R, not the more expensive "music" CD-R's for everything, including music and have not had a problem with the disc being rejected. It depends on the brand more than anything. Some brand just don't work with my burner but others do.

[Atlant]

47. Are you sure?

> but keep in mind that the RIAA already gets a small surcharge for
> each and every CD sold, regardless of if it is "recordable" or not
> (even software houses have to buy their CDs somewhere}.

I'll assume you meant "for every CD-R sold". I'm certain the RIAA
doesn't get any money for pressed data CDROMs (Sony and Phillips get
their millicents, though, as inverntors of the format).

I'm not at all certain that the RIAA gets any money for "data" CD-Rs,
either. I know they get a pretty substantial fee for "audio" CD-Rs,
though (on the order of $0.50 per disc, right?); it's that question
of "fee paid" plus one bit in the disc header that distinguishes
"audio" CD-Rs from "data" CD-Rs. But if you have a citation that
authoritatively states that the RIAA gets money for EVERY CD-R
sold, whether "data" or "audio", I'll be glad to read it.

When I'm paying approximately $0.00 per blank data CD-R (after
discounts and rebates), it's pretty hard for me to imagine that the
evil RIAA is getting rich on these fees. :-)

Atlant

[Mithras61]

51. Distinguishing between "audio" and "data" formats

is pretty pointless these days, since most current "cd players" can read both formats just fine, and many can even read MP3s. Also, when I go out to buy "data" CD-Rs and they are more expensive (shelf-price) than "audio" CD-Rs, I tend to believe that RIAA is getting it's cut of ALL CD-R media.

Rebates and discounts are usually funded by the distributor or manufacturer, and have no bearing on the cost paid by the retailer.

[Atlant]

60. www.staples.com says you're wrong.

Their best deal on "data" CD-Rs seems to be:

http://www.staples.com/Catalog/Browse/sku.asp?PageType=1&Sku=452556&bcFlag=True&bcSCatId=3&bcSCatName=Technology&bcCatId=42&bcCatName=Computer+Media&bcDeptId=1881&bcDeptName=CD%2DR%2FRW&bcClassId=60202&bcClassName=CD%2DR

at $0.25/disc (on a spindle).


Their best deal on "audio" CD-Rs seems to be:

http://www.staples.com/Catalog/Browse/sku.asp?PageType=1&Sku=453963&bcFlag=True&bcSCatId=3&bcSCatName=Technology&bcCatId=42&bcCatName=Computer+Media&bcDeptId=1881&bcDeptName=CD%2DR%2FRW&bcClassId=141446&bcClassName=Audio+CD%2DR

at $0.66/disc (on a spindle)


Earlier, I estimated $0.50/disc for the RIAA "audio" fee; looks like
it's a bit less at $0.41/disc in this example.

Atlant

[Mithras61]

63. www.pricewatch.com

has data CD-Rs at $0.18 each (400pk for $72) and audio CDs for $0.01 (100pk for $1).

[Atlant]

64. I thought you just said...

I thought you just said...

> Rebates and discounts are usually funded by the distributor or
> manufacturer, and have no bearing on the cost paid by the retailer.

So I found you some prices that are exclusive of special promotions.
But if you're going to include those, then I'll remind you again that
I've "bought" data CD-Rs at $0.00 each.

Are you running short on facts?

Atlant

[Mithras61]

65. Pricewatch is reporting the street price

without including discounts.

[Atlant]

66. I see.

Interesting disclaimer on the Pricewatch site...

If a retailer is listed on your site can I assume that I will not encounter any problems during my purchase?
Keep in mind that prices shown on our site are advertisements. We do not endorse any retailer mentioned at this
site. Please read our disclaimer. Pricing advertisements are published at this site in order to assist you during a
buying decision. It is up to you to qualify a retailer.

I ordered a motherboard with 512k cache from Happy Motherboards and it came with 256k cache. I'm mad!
What is Price Watch going to do about it?
Please keep in mind that Price Watch is simply an online publication where Retailers advertise. Similar to magazine
advertisements.

I'll stick with Staples as examples of real pricing, but if you think
$0.01 is an actual, sustainable retail price for "audio" CD-Rs, then
feel free to cite that.

Atlant

[northzax]

42. you are, of course, technically correct

however, I think the music industry is the only industry I know of that is actively trying to put potential consumers in jail and in the dock.

Look at it this way. I confess that I have downloaded music from KaZaa (I have since deleted it, by the way, too many viruses) but anyway, I have perhaps 300+ songs that I downloaded and kept. From that list, I have purchased, in the past six months, 17 CDs of music that I was unfamiliar with before downloading. At an anverage price of $18/CD, my ability to basically preview music has lead me to spend $306 since New Year's that I otherwise would not have spent. I deleted KaZaa at the beginning of June. However, since I will not purchase music before listening to at least part of it, and Clear Channel doesn't play what I like, I have not purchased one single CD since then. By threatening me with a lawsuit, the music industry as a whole has lost an average of $734 of my custom over the next 12 months. boy, that's some marketing plan, ain't it?

[Atlant]

44. Sounds like you need a Mac and iTunes.

> However, since I will not purchase music before listening to at
> least part of it, and Clear Channel doesn't play what I like, I
> have not purchased one single CD since then.

Sounds like you need a Mac and iTunes. iTunes gives you a free 30
second preview. You can then choose to buy the whole song for $0.99
or go down to your nearest CD shop and buy the album.

Atlant

[northzax]

46. and as soon as they go windows

I will be there.

This is an example of an industry welcoming customers and not threatening them. I like it, and look forward to having a windows version this fall.

[NashVegas]

50. They've Got a Point, Though

iTunes and other online selling options only give you 30 seconds to decide. Some kiosks, longer. I'm not sure if the Tower kiosks give you the full song or not, but even then, it's only the CDs that Tower is (likely being paid to be) promoting.

Record labels are particular about where they put their budgetary support. If a radio PD hates CD A and doesn't want to play it, but loves CD B, the label might say, "but we're only budgeted to promote CD A. So I tell ya what. Go ahead and play CD B, but if you also add CD A, we'll buy an advertising run supporting it." In the cases where the PD works for a corporate-owned station with little freedom to 'follow their gut' (which is almost everyone now) they aren't going to bother with CD B, CD A goes right in.

Radio stations give you the whole song's length to decide, and 99% are only playing for you those songs the record labels have budgeted to promote. That's another huge reason they are terrified of losing control of distribution. Because if Sony allocates 25 million dollars to promoting CD A and it bombs, while CD B gets copied and passed around to the point where people go into the store and buy it AND their concerts sell out, people - very high up in the company - are going to lose their jobs.

[Aaron]

71. Copyright laws on made on behalf of profit are not constitutional -

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

The purpose of copyright is not profit. It is the promotion of progress in science and the useful arts - Extension of copyright has shown to discourage innovation http://linuxizer.virtualave.net/STATISTICS/

Further, your assessment that fundamentally there is some similarity between physical theft and copying in a manner that is infringing on a copyright isn't completely accurate. You've ignored, arguably, that in actual theft of a CD there is always some physical loss whereas a copier of cd's who provides them to those who otherwise would not buy or could not buy them is not costing anyone potential profits, let alone depriving them of actual property.

Technology allowing mass reproduction and sharing of information is an advance that draws us closer to the day when technology can provide for all people and a utopia might exist where needs are not unmet because of faults of poverty and distribution. I fear your argument against reproduction would also have us ignore ability to reproduce nutritious food or warm clothing for the hungry or unclothed if technology allowing such existed.

[chenGOD]

79. BS...

The only difference is the storage medium. When you get a CD, you have a collection of bytes on a compact disc. When you get an MP3 you have the same collection of bytes on your hard drive (although one could argue that an MP3 is not the same as the original audio file).

Now I agree that the RIAA is screwing customers with the price of CDs and the quality of music in general coming out on the big5 is pretty fucking shoddy.

But IP is still property.

[Aaron]

81. What's BS?

The Constitution provides no ownership right to creators except as a means to promote progress. I quoted the text from the Constitution itself.

A person who cannot or will not buy the music, copying the music, presents no loss of income to the copyright holder or retailer. They can't. There never was any potential sale. Stealing a cd, whether or not it would otherwise be sold, costs at least the production cost of the CD and perhaps the cost of a potential sale to the copyright holder if the number of CDs available at a distribution point is limited and a person who would otherwise buy is prevented by virtue of the unavailability of the stolen CD.

IP cost prevents reproduction of AIDS drugs for poor Africans. Companies are patenting food crop strains - which may turn out similar to the situation of the AIDS drugs.

[chenGOD]

86. What about people selling MP3s legitimately?

Which is happening.

The person who was never gonna buy the music doesn't deserve to have it through a download. As long as I live in Seoul, I'm never gonna buy a car. Should I just take one off a lot? Or from the Hyundai factory (they have thousands that are all identical)? Or what about someone who can't afford to buy a car in America? If someone steals a car they're enjoying the fruits of someone else's labour. If someone copies my song and doesn't pay what I think is a fair price for it, they're enjoying the fruits of my labour. In both cases they are doing so without due recompensation.

With regards to promoting progress, are you telling me that music hasn't progressed since the time of Bach? Or Mozart? Or Satie? Or Stockhausen? Or The Beatles? Cause you'd be sorely wrong.


On Edit: I do think that throwing people in jail is far too harsh a punishment. They should pay 50 cents to the artist for each of their songs on the hard drive.

[umcwb]

13. Kick, n/t

[FatherTorque]

15. Bowens43 said in the other thread on this,

"I would expect this kind of crap from the republicans but not the dems."

I usually post at LibertyPost, but I also lurk here and a few other places. I'm not here for a fight, just to make a comment about something that bugs me.

Bowens says that he's surprised that this would come from a Dem but not a Repub? I say why? There isn't any difference in the two parties anymore, they are only concerned with money and getting reelected. As soon as the RIAA sends it's bribes, errr campaign contributions to the Repubs they'll gladly be all for this.

Actually it was just last month that Orrin Hatch said he was in favor of allowing the RIAA to hack into computers of people suspected of having illegally copyrighted files. Guess he got his check early.

I know I'm probably wasting my breath here but this arguing over partisan politics is a waste of time. While we sit around and argue, both the Repubs and the Dems are gladhanding each other and running this country further and further into the ground.

/now back to my normally scheduled lurking

[GreenArrow]

31. Ah, the truth that dare not speak its name

I'm not going to fight with you, I agree with you.

[Ghost of Tom Joad]

16. bring 'em on

no jobs
no healthcare
soldiers die almost daily
education sucks
college is becoming unaffordable
prisons are overcrowded
and on and on...
And these guys worry about kids swapping music. Maybe the republicans can start a voucher system that lets these kids go to the jail of their choice!

[Chovexani]

20. Hey

If they put us all in jail, they won't have to worry about giving us jobs or educations! Brilliant concept dontcha think? </sarcasm>

[LeighAnn]

27. More $$$$ for the prison industry

If you're making money from people being imprisoned, then more warm bodies means more $$$$.

Anybody know if The Carlyle Group has any money in this?

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

37. Repubs have nothing to do with it.

This bill, and many others like it, was spawned by Howard Berman, a Democrat congressman from California who's owned outright by the RIAA. You think Republicans are the only ones willing to sacrifice the public good for money?

[Occulus]

41. question

Are chemical or electrochemical copies under the wing of US copyright law as well?

and: Does the Audio Home Recording Act apply?

[sendero]

43. I'd like to pass a law...

... retroactive of course, to imprison the assholes in the music business that have excised damn near every ounce of creativity from popular music.

Meanwhile, like most issues, this one is a lot more complicated than it appears, but I'm not going to change anyone's mind about it.

Bottom line, I download music, but if I really like it (i.e. listen to if more than a couple times) I buy it. In fact, the last 20 CDs I'vbe bought were after an online preview.

Of course, this works to help *real* musicians with somethign to offer. But that is not who the recording industry cares about. They are worried that teens won't buy the new Brittney or Linkin Park or other absolute rubbish that is nothing but a media creation anyway.

Screw the whole lot of them - and the sooner the music "industry" is on its knees the better. We don't need them, they add no value, and the artists don't need them either. Meanwhile, I laugh at these kinds of measures - which will accomplish next to nothing.

[NJGeek]

52. This is why the Democratic Party needs an overhaul...

... it is issues like these that make me wince to vote Democratic. This is egregious pandering to business, specifically one business, without concern for the rights of citizens. Where are the smart voices out there with a nuanced approach to this problem? This makes me physically ill.

[Norbert]

54. I haven't bought a CD since the RIAA spouted off

The road to hell is paved with music industry people who ripped off young musicians who could sing and play an instrument but had little business sense. Yet these actions have historically gone unchecked.

In the sixties radio would play you one song any you bought a single then maybe an album. In the seventies and eighties you were fed several album cuts off an album and then you made the decision whether to buy the album. Today you are only fed a song and then you are supposed to make the determination whether to shell out $16 for a CD. As an alternative you can stand in a Borders for an hour with earphones on. I won't do it.

I will not buy a new CD in the near future. The only ones I will purchase will be used. I will continue to download rare and unreleased songs which is the body of my downloads anyway.

John Conyers should pay more attention to the administration that is tearing the country apart instead of worrying about some college kid downloading songs.

[Atlant]

57. John Conyers...

> John Conyers should pay more attention to the administration that is
> tearing the country apart instead of worrying about some college
> kid downloading songs.

John Conyers has hauled more water for Progressives than most any
other ten congressmen combined; sorry he's goring folks' (illegal)
oxen on this one, but he's right.

Atlant

[Q]

67. This is a strange country...

...when people who 'swap files' go to jail while the ken Lays of the world get a free ride.

[GreenArrow]

68. I don't know what Conyer's angle is,

but it isn't right. Obtuse, maybe.

[Atlant]

69. Has anyone actually *READ* this bill?

This appears to be the bill in question:

HR2517 -- Piracy Deterrence and Education Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)

A BILL To enhance criminal enforcement of the copyright laws, educate
the public about the application of copyright law to the Internet, and
clarify the authority to seize unauthorized copyrighted works.

I must be missing all the REALLY SCARY LANGUAGE that everone is so
excited about here; where does it talk about automatic jail time or
any of that stuff?

I'll post the bill below.

(And the last time I looked, Lamar Smith was a Texas REPUBLICAN.)

Atlant

---

Piracy Deterrence and Education Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)

HR 2517 IH

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2517

To enhance criminal enforcement of the copyright laws, educate the public about the application of copyright law to the Internet, and clarify the authority to
seize unauthorized copyrighted works.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 19, 2003

Mr. SMITH of Texas (for himself, Mr. BERMAN , and Mr. CONYERS ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary



A BILL

To enhance criminal enforcement of the copyright laws, educate the public about the application of copyright law to the Internet, and clarify the authority to
seize unauthorized copyrighted works.

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 `Piracy Deterrence and Education Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds as follows:

(1) The Internet, while changing the way our society communicates, has also changed the nature of many crimes, including the theft of
intellectual property.

(2) Trafficking in copyrighted works through increasingly sophisticated electronic means, including peer-to-peer file trading networks,
Internet chat rooms, and newsgroups, threatens lost jobs, lost income for creators, lower tax revenue, and higher prices for honest
purchasers.

(3) The most popular peer-to-peer file trading software programs have been downloaded by computer users over 200,000,000 times. At
any one time there are over 3,000,000 users simultaneously using just one of these services. Each month, on average, over 2,300,000,000
digital-media files are transferred among users of peer-to-peer systems.

(4) Many computer users either do not know that copyright laws apply to Internet activity or simply believe that they will not be caught or
prosecuted for their conduct.

(5) In addition, many of the computer users drawn to the convenience of peer-to-peer systems do not realize that these systems pose
serious security and privacy threats to their personal computers or company networks. Recent studies reveal that the majority of the
users of these systems are unable to tell what files they are sharing and sometimes incorrectly assume they were not sharing any files
when in fact they were sharing all files on their hard drive.

(6) The security and privacy threats posed by peer-to-peer networks extend beyond users inadvertently enabling a hacker to access
files. Millions of copies of one of the most popular peer-to-peer networks contain software that could allow an independent company to
take over portions of users' computers and Internet connections and has the capacity to keep track of users' online habits.

(7) In light of these considerations, it is important that Federal law enforcement agencies actively pursue criminals who steal the
copyrighted works of others, and prevent such activity through enforcement and awareness. It is also important that the public be
educated about the security and privacy risks associated with being connected to an unauthorized peer-to-peer network.

(8) In addition, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security has the authority to act against
infringements of copyrighted works, including those works protected under the Berne Convention and the Agreement on Trade Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property of the World Trade Organization. Under United States law, merchandise can be seized by or forfeited to
the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection if `it is merchandise or packaging in which copyright , trademark, or trade name protection
violations are involved' (section 596(c)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1595a(c)(2)(C)).

(9) Though the regulations of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (section 133.31 of title 19, Code of Federal Regulations)
provide that registered copyrighted works may be recorded with the Bureau for `import protection,' recordation is not explicitly required
before infringing merchandise can be seized or forfeited. Notwithstanding present legal authority, there have been concerns raised about
the authority of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to seize infringing copyrighted materials that have neither been registered
with the United States Copyright Office or recorded with the Bureau.

(10) Neither United States nor foreign works require registration with the Copyright Office for protection of the copyright in those works.
United States works require registration only before an action for infringement is brought under title 17, United States Code. A foreign
work need not be registered to bring such an action for infringement, and none of the rights contained in title 17, United States Code,
including the right to control distribution in section 106 of that title or importation under section 602 of that title, are contingent upon
registration. In accordance with the international obligations of the United States barring the use of formalities, United States law gives
foreign copyright owners direct access to United States courts and procedures without resort to any registration requirement, and section
603 of title 17, United States Code, directs the Secretary of the Treasury and the United States Postal Service to separately or jointly
make regulations for the enforcement of the provisions of title 17, United States Code, prohibiting importation.

(11) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection has been unclear about its
legal authority to seize infringing copyrighted materials that have neither been registered with the Copyright Office nor recorded with the
Bureau. To provide clarity, it is necessary to specify the authority of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to seize infringing
materials protected by the copyright laws, with or without registration or recordation.

SEC. 3. DETERRENCE AND COORDINATION.

The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall--

(1) develop a program to deter members of the public from committing acts of copyright infringement by--

(A) offering on the Internet copies of copyrighted works, or

(B) making copies of copyrighted works from the Internet,

without the authorization of the copyright owners; and

(2) facilitate the sharing among law enforcement agencies, Internet service providers, and copyright owners of information concerning
activities described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1).

The program under paragraph (1) shall include issuing appropriate warnings to individuals engaged in an activity described in subparagraph (A)
or (B) of paragraph (1) that they may be subject to criminal prosecution.

SEC. 4. DESIGNATION AND TRAINING OF AGENTS IN COMPUTER HACKING AND INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY UNITS.

(a) DESIGNATION OF AGENTS IN CHIPS UNITS- The Attorney General shall ensure that any unit in the Department of Justice responsible
for investigating computer hacking or responsible for investigating intellectual property crimes is assigned at least one agent to support such unit
for the purpose of investigating crimes relating to the theft of intellectual property.

(b) TRAINING- The Attorney General shall ensure that each agent assigned under subsection (a) has received training in the investigation and
enforcement of intellectual property crimes.

SEC. 5. EDUCATION PROGRAM.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT- There shall be established within the Office of the Associate Attorney General of the United States an Internet Use
Education Program.

(b) PURPOSE- The purpose of the Internet Use Education Program shall be to--

(1) educate the general public concerning the value of copyrighted works and the effects of the theft of such works on those who create
them;

(2) educate the general public concerning the privacy, security, and other risks of using the Internet to obtain unauthorized copies of
copyrighted works;

(3) coordinate and consult with the Department of Education on compliance by educational institutions with applicable copyright laws
involving Internet use; and

(4) coordinate and consult with the Department of Commerce on compliance by corporations with applicable copyright laws involving
Internet use.

SEC. 6. CUSTOMS RECORDATION.

(a) REGISTRATION AND INFRINGEMENT ACTIONS- Section 411(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the first
sentence the following: `An action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall not include any action brought by the
Government of the United States or by any agency or instrumentality thereof.'.

(b) INFRINGING IMPORTATION- Section 602(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended by inserting before the period at the end of the
first sentence the following: `, regardless of whether that work has been registered with the Copyright Office or recorded with the Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security'.

(c) IMPORTATION PROHIBITIONS- Section 603(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended by inserting before the period the following: `of
copies or phonorecords of a work protected under this title, regardless of whether that work has been registered with the Copyright Office or
recorded with the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security'.

SEC. 7. INFRINGEMENT WARNING NOTICE.

The Attorney General shall, within 3 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, set forth criteria under which copyright owners
designated by the Attorney General will be able to use the seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for deterrent purposes in connection with
physical and digital copies and phonorecords and digital transmission of their works of authorship.

[Not a robought]

83. THIS BILL IS B.S.

You are missing the scary language? Does this make you jump with delight?:

SEC. 3. DETERRENCE AND COORDINATION.

The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall--

(1) develop a program to deter members of the public from committing acts of copyright infringement by--

(A) offering on the Internet copies of copyrighted works, or

(B) making copies of copyrighted works from the Internet,

without the authorization of the copyright owners; and

HELLO. In other words, they don't have to prove that you were intentionally violating copyright, only that you were able to make copyright material available.

So if I have an ftp site for my personal use and someone hacks it. I'm the violator? Good luck, remember there is a whole wide world of the internet out there and this bill only applies to limiting the US. It will do nothing to stop copyright violation.

Here is the other language you should be worried about:

SEC. 4. DESIGNATION AND TRAINING OF AGENTS IN COMPUTER HACKING AND INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY UNITS.

(a) DESIGNATION OF AGENTS IN CHIPS UNITS- The Attorney General shall ensure that any unit in the Department of Justice responsible
for investigating computer hacking or responsible for investigating intellectual property crimes is assigned at least one agent to support such unit
for the purpose of investigating crimes relating to the theft of intellectual property.

Which means we will have FBI hacking people's computers.

This bill makes the Dems look ridiculous IMO.

[Aaron]

84. Ty for the review. I didn't pick through it yet - looks bad though (n/t)