Filesharing - this time, it's personal!
MonsieurEvil
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Off-Topic
<div class="IPBDescription">Your cell in solitary, i mean</div>(Excerpted from <a href="http://www.arstechnica.com" target="_blank">ArsTechnica Main Page</a>)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Peer-to-peer: "Stealing is stealing"
Posted 8/21/2002 - 1:51PM, by Yaz
There has mostly been talk thus far and little action, but the Department of Justice says it may be ready to file criminal lawsuits against individuals who distribute or receive unauthorized copyrighted material over the Internet. Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Malcolm believes that "criminal prosecutions of copyright offenders are now necessary to preserve the viability of America's content industries." Malcolm also believes that people who trade copyrighted material think they are participating in a legal activity. I certainly think people who download copyrighted works understand that such distribution--barring provisions such as fair use--is not authorized, and it is not surprising to see businesses continue to look for means to discourage distribution of copyrighted works.
"Some prosecutions that make that clear could be very helpful...I think they would think twice if they thought there was a risk of criminal prosecution," said [RIAA President Cary] Sherman, who was on the same conference panel.
I'm not too confident that lawsuits would have the effect Sherman is hoping for. Although infrequent, there have already been civil suits or warnings issued to private individuals, and they have served as minor deterrents to the file-sharing community at large. Criminal lawsuits carrying with them the possibility of prison sentences may generate further animosity against groups such as the RIAA and may be difficult to initiate because of the "schooling" effect of millions of systems participating in file sharing. Only servers would seem to stand out from the crowd.
The article cites the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act, which defines illegal activity and maximum penalties for copyright infringement:
Criminal infringement: Any person who infringes a copyright willfully for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or 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.... For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
...
The term "financial gain" includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.
Therefore, receipt of a work of value would be defined as "financial gain" even if no money is involved. The NET Act excerpt does not clarify how the value of a work is determined; an album or movie could be worth only $15 to millions of dollars depending on whether the value is assessed from the perspective of the consumer or copyright holder.
The statute of limitations:
507. Limitations on actions
(a) Criminal Proceedings.--No criminal proceeding shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within five years after the cause of action arose.
(b) Civil Actions.--No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.
The penalties are too extensive to list here, but they can be found in Section 2319: Criminal infringement of a copyright. In general, first-time criminal offenses will carry a maximum prison sentence of 1 year.
I'm still not sure where the DOJ would start in choosing people to prosecute because of the aforementioned "schooling" effect, but my guess would be that, just like speeding, primarily the most prominent individuals who operate large servers or transfer the most data will be targeted in order to discourage more recreational file sharers. Thanks to MonaLisaOverdrive for pointing out this story.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Further materials to be found <a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1023-954591.html?tag=fd_top" target="_blank">Here at CNet</a> and <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17-18red.htm" target="_blank">Here at the USDoJ</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Peer-to-peer: "Stealing is stealing"
Posted 8/21/2002 - 1:51PM, by Yaz
There has mostly been talk thus far and little action, but the Department of Justice says it may be ready to file criminal lawsuits against individuals who distribute or receive unauthorized copyrighted material over the Internet. Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Malcolm believes that "criminal prosecutions of copyright offenders are now necessary to preserve the viability of America's content industries." Malcolm also believes that people who trade copyrighted material think they are participating in a legal activity. I certainly think people who download copyrighted works understand that such distribution--barring provisions such as fair use--is not authorized, and it is not surprising to see businesses continue to look for means to discourage distribution of copyrighted works.
"Some prosecutions that make that clear could be very helpful...I think they would think twice if they thought there was a risk of criminal prosecution," said [RIAA President Cary] Sherman, who was on the same conference panel.
I'm not too confident that lawsuits would have the effect Sherman is hoping for. Although infrequent, there have already been civil suits or warnings issued to private individuals, and they have served as minor deterrents to the file-sharing community at large. Criminal lawsuits carrying with them the possibility of prison sentences may generate further animosity against groups such as the RIAA and may be difficult to initiate because of the "schooling" effect of millions of systems participating in file sharing. Only servers would seem to stand out from the crowd.
The article cites the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act, which defines illegal activity and maximum penalties for copyright infringement:
Criminal infringement: Any person who infringes a copyright willfully for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or 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.... For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
...
The term "financial gain" includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.
Therefore, receipt of a work of value would be defined as "financial gain" even if no money is involved. The NET Act excerpt does not clarify how the value of a work is determined; an album or movie could be worth only $15 to millions of dollars depending on whether the value is assessed from the perspective of the consumer or copyright holder.
The statute of limitations:
507. Limitations on actions
(a) Criminal Proceedings.--No criminal proceeding shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within five years after the cause of action arose.
(b) Civil Actions.--No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.
The penalties are too extensive to list here, but they can be found in Section 2319: Criminal infringement of a copyright. In general, first-time criminal offenses will carry a maximum prison sentence of 1 year.
I'm still not sure where the DOJ would start in choosing people to prosecute because of the aforementioned "schooling" effect, but my guess would be that, just like speeding, primarily the most prominent individuals who operate large servers or transfer the most data will be targeted in order to discourage more recreational file sharers. Thanks to MonaLisaOverdrive for pointing out this story.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Further materials to be found <a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1023-954591.html?tag=fd_top" target="_blank">Here at CNet</a> and <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17-18red.htm" target="_blank">Here at the USDoJ</a>
Comments
erk... thats gonna make a hell of a mess to clean up again
<!--EDIT|Relic25|Aug. 21 2002,19:31-->
"net affect"
Pun intended? Teheehee
I think it's laughable that these people have the arrogance to try and stop this. For every one P2P program you squash, another 5 will take its place. Even if there was some sort of international consortium to establish worldwide laws like the Geneva Convention (Almost worldwide anyway) to stamp them out, people can always revert to downloading songs off eachothers private, passworded FTPs or using direct data transfers like IRC's DCC.
It's like hearding cats, you'll get a few but most will evade you perpetually.
--Scythe--
<a href="mailto:the_only_scythe@subdimension.com">the_only_scythe@subdimension.com</a>
You do act directly on something, you are breaking copyright laws. The internet does not exist beyond the realm of law, that's why child pornographers and such are dealt with. If you are stupid enough to break the law enough (such as download copyrighted music) in a big enough quantity to warrant people to care then you should pay the price.
If you download copyrighted files you are a criminal, it's time people faced up to that.
I think a couple of high profile cases would be enough to scare most people away from file sharing apps. People still use FTP, but it's not as mainstream and it takes a little tiny bit of knowledge (more than downloading kazaa or whatever) to use it.
Anyone who thinks the internet is a lawless anonymous playground for delivering their every whim is going to have to have a rethink.
I can't wait for the fireworks to begin knowing I have no illegal material <!--emo&:D--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'><!--endemo--> (not knowledgably anyway <!--emo&:p--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'><!--endemo-->)
There are a lot of uninforcable laws on the books. For example, oral sex is actually illegal in a lot of states. Here in Oklahoma, its even a felony. But I gurantee you that you won't hear about anybody on the news getting busted for it. :P
The way this country works they'll probably just let the murderers and rapers out of prison to make room for the shoutcasters...
I think it's laughable that you people have the arrogance to belief that they won't follow through with this.
The $1000 is a bit of luck, that will let you get away with 100 or so albums, I don't know how many movies though, I reckon most broadband users will have $1000 of copyrighted material illegally on their PC, I doubt many of those on dialup will, but still the time will come...
Yeah, I'm sure they won't arrest everyone, that clearly isn't their intention, I think they aer hoping for 2-3 hgih profile cases of "normal" users being busted for this to scare people away from file sharing, and I hope it works.
So you think that letting all forms of equallity in front of the law down just to nail a new form of distribution shut is a good thing?
Either you at least try to punish all that have broken a law, or you don't do it at all - one of those basic rules in law enforcement.
Plus, who the hell says that P2P is thievery? Looking at the sales of media that are distributed over the net, I can only call it advertising: Sales of the companies in the RIAA have drastically increased during the P2P-'era', despite the bad forecast experts gave them at the begining, as the highly profitable 'Best of' buisness was declining. Believe me or not, but many of the current billion sellers wouldn't have been possible without the fast advertising they recieved by the 'unconventional' media.
set your harddrive free! <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo-->
Here's an idea: If you like a band, email them personally and get them to set up a PO box or a Paypal account, then every time you download an album of theirs, send them about 5 bucks. That's a lot more than they make with the major labels. Support the artists by enjoying their music, don't support the greedy ######## who have the artists by the balls.
I don't know wether this exists everywhere else, but in Germany, there's the 'GEMA' which is funded by a small additional cost on copying devices such as recorders and then pays the artists to pay them for this kind of distribution.
If the same thing was applied to PCs, P2P could prove to be most profitable for the artists.
A thief steals something, meaning someone has less than before. This is not true for copying of digital data, as the original data still exists afterwards.
And a pirate? Don't make me laugh. Pirates are murderers who slit people's throats to steal their belongings. Using this word in this context is ridiculous.
All that is happening is copyright infringement, and copyright is a silly concept in the Internet age anyway.
If anything this law enforcement initiative will speed up the development of completely anonymized p2p-clients which obfuscate the source of all data.
It's like calling all users 'freedom fighters' because they do something that goes against major corporation agendas.
As a professional programmer and therefore creator of intellectual property and copywrite materials I should be on the side of the lawyers. However as an underpaid hireling I find myself on the side of the 'pirates'.
I feel software should be free and that creators of intellectual copyright should create of of their love of the creative process not for personnal gain. Like mod creators do.
Then again If their wasn't any money in it most of us could not afford to hone our skills to the point of making something worthwhile.
So pragmatically speaking it's best if we just blunder on as we are. With some filthy rich media creating companies and a bit of 'piracy'.