Congress May Outlaw 'Attempted Piracy' 768
cnet-declan writes "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is asking Congress to make 'attempted' copyright infringement a federal crime. The text of the legislation as well as the official press-release is available online. Rep. Lamar Smith, a key House Republican, said he 'applauds' the idea, and his Democratic counterpart is probably on board too. In addition, the so-called Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007 would create a new crime of life imprisonment for using pirated software in some circumstances, expand the DMCA with civil asset forfeiture, and authorize wiretaps in investigations of Americans who are 'attempting' to infringe copyrights. Does this go too far?"
Re:Why does the law punish attempts at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
Life in prison? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is brilliant! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is brilliant! (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
" Require Homeland Security to alert the Recording Industry Association of America. That would happen when compact discs with "unauthorized fixations of the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance" are attempted to be imported. Neither the Motion Picture Association of America nor the Business Software Alliance (nor any other copyright holder such as photographers, playwrights, or news organizations, for that matter) would qualify for this kind of special treatment."
Since when did Copyright Infringement become an issue for Homeland Security to work directly with a specific corporation?
Why give only the RIAA this treatment? Do they notify Tropicana when off-brand OJ is smuggled in from Mexico?
Re:Life in prison? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Absurd (Score:4, Insightful)
Here is exactly what is wrong with (Score:5, Insightful)
If this is to pass, what immoral act would next be prosecuted? Being gay? Being obese? Being lazy?
This is clearly an admission by those who support it that they are UNABLE to enforce current laws, and even that they are trying to enforce laws that are thought to be bad laws by enough people that they can't possibly get 100% compliance.
Re:Life in prison? (Score:3, Insightful)
Thought Crime (Score:2, Insightful)
I assume that's a rhetorical question? This sounds remarkably like thought crime. What needs to happen here: immediately laugh this law out of congress, start a massive movement to make certain that no politician who has even spoken well of this bill is ever elected to any public office again, and immediately begin investigations for bribery into those politicians who voted for it or promoted it. Even suggesting life imprisonment for copyright infringement is simply ludicrous.
Re:This is brilliant! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, I thought life imprisonment and civil forfeiture for an attempted crime was impossible, too. Stupid me.
Several reasons. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why does the law punish attempts at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
And as one person said, attempted crimes are often persecuted, with murder as a clear example. Robbery is another.
I'd laugh if I saw this plea in court:
"Yeah I tried to rob the store, but the cop stopped me! Let me go free, I didn't actually do that"
Re:Good Grief (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:This is what happens when you go to republican (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the type of thing that makes me wish we had a strong third party with different views on copyright. Right now, it's like the insanity of the war on drugs. You have one side that tough on drugs because it's politically smart and the other side is fucking frothing at the mouth because they're fascists. Where's the sanity?
Riiight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Better question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Death to tyrants (Score:5, Insightful)
The only good politician is tortured and dead.
except (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is almost certainly already lobbying for laws that will place strong legal burdens and liabilities on open source software, with the intent of making it impossible for any serious business to run open source software.
because it matters (Score:3, Insightful)
Because this stuff matters. Big companies are spending billions to influence politicians. The only power that we, the people, have against that is to make our wishes clear to our elected representatives. If you don't, these companies will get their way by default.
And in order to do something about these laws, you need to know about them. So get off your lazy behind and let your representatives know where you stand on these issues.
Re:Better question... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Like Gonzales has any credibility left.
Ownership Society (Score:5, Insightful)
This is going to sound like a screed, but now you figured it out. The implications of the last 6 years of legislative and executive action are damn obvious to academic economists (like me). The "ownership society" the Decider spoke so much about in 1999 and 2000 leads directly to this. Not long ago, Republicans would be very angry and resentful that the government would try and allow monopolies on our collective culture. Now, all politicians are content that well over half this country will be at the mercy of the "Owners." Being an "Owner" won't be easy though, because many, many employers are making employees sign away all rights to inventions, patents, and copyrights devised while at the company (we don't know how enforcable this is now, but will be within 50 years at the current pace). Any worker will never be able to own their own work, and will never be able to enter the "Ownership" class easily.
We will enter feudalism all over again, but this time over access to information. Instead of paying a 60% title to your lord, or paying 35% in tax, you'll be paying 1000s of micropayments to let you do things like sing "Happy Birthday" at your child's birthday, or to load that CD into your computer. Your right to know if there is melamine in your flour will just be more commoditized information, and well beyond your ability to afford. You'll have to buy all your human and property rights back from the barons that own them, if you have the cash.
Democrats stopped being "liberal" about 70 years ago. About 30 years ago, Republicans stopped being "conservative." We are left with two right-wing Authoritarian parties. As disclosure here, I voted for Bush in 2000, thinking he'd be less authoritarian than Al "My wife invented the Tipper Sticker" Gore and Joe "We need to censor video games" Lieberman. I may have been wrong.
Re:Life in prison? (Score:2, Insightful)
As I'm sure many people will point out, the "life in prison" part is for situation "where the defendant knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death." That doesn't seem so unreasonable now, does it?
Remember, this act covers more than just software and music. It also causes pharmaceuticals and other things like that. If you sell a counterfeit cancer drug knowing that people probably will die as a result, you will get a very long time out.
The summary, as usual, is going for maximum sensation and minimum accuracy.
Lets face it - Intellectual Property IS WRONG (Score:5, Insightful)
if anything, any concept or practice comes to this point, it becomes evident that it is wrong and harmful.
lets see what intellectual property has become :
nth generation inheritors still living lavishly on a single book their ancestors had produced 100 years ago, without giving anything to society.
big publishers enjoying a practical monopoly of the creative market, sign on promising talents, and thereby force (or try to force) entire population of earth to go through them to reach mankind's fruits of creativity.
same big publishers are utilizing connections and bribing statesmen so that their monopoly wont be broken, but furthered, in the expense of modern democratic rights and values.
A scoundrel's collection of lawyers, posing as RIAA, extorting and intimidating people arbitrarily, without even feeling the need to provide valid proof before accusing someone and demanding surrender.
combined, all these have reached a point that the intellectual property exploit parties are now insolently demanding that their hold on society be ratified and furthered with LIFETIME imprisonment. get a load of that. This is no less than INDENTURED servitude of 17th century. make one mistake, sign one paper and you are goner.
this is not what free countries of the earth were founded for. in every country every citizen has the right to take up arms against a state that compromises the principles of democracy and unjust. United states was founded in this fashion, and has open statements to that effect.
It is evident that intellectual property concept has to be revised fundamentally, to prevent such abuses and insolence. its current state is a one that it has started actually hampering free trade, freedom of choice, competition and civil rights.
Re:Several reasons Horsesh*t (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lifetime Crime (Score:2, Insightful)
This is just a ludicrous attempt to tie piracy with more heinous crimes. It's like saying we should give life in prison for littering... with the intent to cause death by forest fire.
Re:Lifetime Crime (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Life in prison? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd go further: I think it's absurd to think of locking people up for a day for this sort of "pirating". Now, it's one thing if you're talking about actual pirates, cutting people's throats on the seven seas and whatnot. Hell, I'll even grant you that, if you're the head of a software-piracy ring that sells counterfeit DVDs, you probably deserve some prison time.
But for downloading "pirated" software, or for using it? No. You aren't some sort of an irredeemable dangerous criminal just because you've downloaded Adobe Photoshop. Worst case for those sorts of pirates-- those who download or participate in a bittorrent-- should be something like paying 150% of the retail price of the infringing software.
Re:Why does the law punish attempts at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How can software cause death. (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, what do you think is running the machine pumping blood through your veins during surgery? Software. In a hospital today there are any number of machines that run on software that keep people alive. However, I doubt very much any of them are using pirated software since the software is written specifically for each machine and the machine won't work without it. Buy the machine, get the software free.
The whole thing seems a bit lame to me. That part, anyway. Criminalizing attempted crimes is already common. Attempted murder is a crime, as is attemted terrorism or whatever. The reasoning is that your incompetence as a criminal shouldn't allow you to try again until you succeed.
So logically speaking it's actually hard to argue against such a law when there already are a number of similar laws except on one very important point: severity. Attempting to do something should only be criminalized in severe crimes. Copyright infringement is a petty crime. Unless done on an industrial scale. And the people doing that on an industrial scale won't be attempting it, they'll be doing it.
Read between the lines (Score:4, Insightful)
This bill may not pass, but who is to say the next bill like this will not pass. The buttholes in congress introduce bills like these to see how much they can get away with. There's a good chance this bill will pass, in some shape. Congress likes to "negotiate" and pass diluted bills through the system.
It's quite possible that Gonzales proposed all these items just so they could "negotiate" the wiretap clause into being passed. Gonzales likely doesn't care about the majority of the items in the proposed bill, he probably is only cares about one or two items. The rest of the bill is likely bait.
I can't help thinking that if the wiretap clause were to be passed, it could be then be used as a defense of all the illegal wiretapping currently going on. On a technical level, anyone using a internet browser could arguably be accused of "attempted" copyright infringement, as your browser downloads the content in order to display it. As such any person with a computer connected to the internet could be wiretapped.
The bottom line is that our congressmen and women need to be smarter than they currently are in order to do their job. Their inability to spot potential exploits like these are going to be our undoing.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because then they'd have to pay lip service to things like Due Process and the Freedom of Information Act. They're much happier as a private organization that simply gets the government to do its bidding for it.
Re:Why does the law punish attempts at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mod parent up: But does the RIAA have Dem suppo (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe you haven't been paying attention to the news, but nobody in Congress has any interest in listening to what Bush is promoting, and certainly not what Gonzales is selling.
I'm just surprised Gonzales choose copyright to try to change the subject. I'd have thought he'd be promoting a bill to protect children from porn, or something like that. Maybe he's afraid of pulling a Mark Foley?
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a shame both the mainstream parties sold their souls decades ago, so long ago that most citizens do not realise what was lost. Both parties serve the interests of the corporations who bankroll their election, and rely on bamboozling the voters for their support instead of representing them.
Re:This is brilliant! (Score:3, Insightful)
Then you'll be accused of violating dozens if not hundreds of patents. Patent violators are treated like pedophiles in the prisons of the future!
Re:Life Sentence? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I moderate +5 Insightful without RTFA (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Several reasons Horsesh*t (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see this particular comparison as "specious at best." That such a comparison can be made is inherent in the law of nearly every country in the world.
Re:Several reasons. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why does the law punish attempts at all? (Score:4, Insightful)
very true. It would speed up the creation of the new slave class also known as ex-cons. After all, why punish poor drug users when you can just make them slaves. They have to be poor already because we can see that rich drug users can make it all the way to the white house.
on another note, here in Houston a few years ago I remember Geraldo Rivera had a special about ex-cons driving our metro buses....and how we should be worried about it. What the heck? I want ex-cons to have jobs. If they don't have jobs, I am pretty sure they are going to resort to crime...
Re:Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I think it's fair (Score:3, Insightful)
2 x List Price. Not jail. You haven't deprived anyone of anything (as your use does not stop someone else's use). Copyright violation is wrong, it doesn't mean that jail is just punishment.
Fantastic! (Score:2, Insightful)
Expect this law to:
A) Not be enforced ever, or the fabric of American society will fall apart as too many prisoners ruin the economy.
B) Be enforced only on occasion, and in ways that are specifically beneficial to the power abusers who will wield this power.
C) Ensure that what was left of our civil liberties is gone, America really is a police state, and expect a massive, massive brain drain.
This guy should so obviously be in prison for crimes against the constitution. Our whole system, and every member in it is so corrupt that Jefferson is totally right: We need a revolution every 25 years, and right now we are 205 years over due.
rhY
Re:Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
Now with the ability to Wiretap the Net (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Death to tyrants (Score:1, Insightful)
This goes way WAY too far (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright and patent violations should not be criminal penalties, period.
Re:RTFB before you post on /. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and they'll charge you with that after one of the SWAT guys stubs his toe after breaking into your house to arrest you for . To me, it sounds like a ridiculous new law that serves no good purpose. We already have laws against assaulting an officer. This is just dumb.
Totally Unconstitutional (Score:4, Insightful)
What they're talking about doing is something like revoking your driver's license because you might be involved in accident.
2 cents,
Queen B.
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's negotiable. Currently law does not reflect this. If a friend of mine decides he doesn't like his Rolling Stones cd, and subsequently gives it to me, the producers/artists have no right (legal or otherwise) to collect money from me.
The only rights the producers/artists have are (i) the right to attempt to sell the items, and (ii) the exclusive right to make copies --- for a limited time. Let's not forget that last part like the corporations and the government have. It's hard for me to sympathize with the artists'/producers' plight when they don't uphold their end of the agreement.
Re:Why does the law punish attempts at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What I think is going to happen.... (Score:3, Insightful)
People need to think about that -- if someone attempts to pirate, is convicted, and serves a prison term of one year, that just cost us taxpayers well over $50,000.
For what? $3000 worth of pirated media?
As a country, we'd be better off just paying the *AA companies directly from the general treasury and allowing people to copy media freely -- of course, that would decrease the expansion of the prison industry, but I have no qualms about that.
Re:Life in prison? (Score:2, Insightful)
What about "attempted torture"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why does the law punish attempts at all? (Score:3, Insightful)
And fortunately for people who can buy legislation, in 1997 'financial gain' was extended to include the simple act of copyright infringement personally saving you $15 for a single CD. (See: the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997)
What you want to argue, is: what does attempted copyright infringement look like?
Because in every case I can think of, an 'attempt' to infringe copyright looks exactly like Fair Use.
Say I have an ISO image of Toy Story on my computer and a box of DVD+Rs on a shelf.
Am I attempting to infringe copyright, ready to churn out bootlegs for sale at the local flea market?
Or am I exercising my right to a legal back-up, for when my kids inevitably mangle the original?
I haven't actually infringed anything, so there's really no way to tell the two situations apart.
(Which is where the 'attempted robbery' analogy completely breaks down. attempted robbery and attempted homicide are cleanly distinguishable from legal activity.)
This all sounds to me like an end-run around Fair Use.
Re:Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
No. It's unlimited as long as Disney has any say in the matter. Every time poor ol Mickey is about to dive into the public domain, it's time for another round of copyright extension. Perpetually renewable != limited.
Copyright is horribly broken. The terms need to be completely re-negotiated. It was never intended to exclusively benefit artists/corporations and guarantee them a living --- it was intended to benefit the public. In that, it is failing.
Re:Several reasons Horsesh*t (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, the original content maker is typically unaware of every single user pirating their content. So the lawn analogy would only work if:
A- The pirate was invisible
B- You were not told of his presence
As for the photo analogy, not everyone makes money from copyright infringement. In fact, most people don't. What if he printed out a giant copy of your Winter scene, framed it, and hung it in his living room. It's not as high quality as it might've been if, say, he ordered a print from you based on the master; in the same way a DVDRip, for example, isn't as high quality as a DVD. He did not profit off of you, and for the most part, you're likely unaware of the transgression even occurring. Is this a crime worthy of such harsh punishment, when even rape and murder often aren't given life sentences?
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Life in prison? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the penalty should be whatever it takes to make piracy unthinkable.
Whatever makes piracy "unthinkable"? Sure, yeah, lets.... how about we kill your firstborn. You get caught pirating, and we kill your children on the spot. That would make piracy unthinkable.
Llsten, I really do sympathize, but as you say, almost no one ever gets caught for piracy, and because punishment is so unlikely, no punishment will ever keep people from pirating unless it's excessively cruel. Instead, let the punishment be commensurate with the crime. We're not talking about killers or child molesters. We're not even talking about theft (no, we're not). We're talking about copyright infringement, and you're talking about one person making an unlicensed copy for himself. The idea of jail time for such a small offense is absurd. We don't even give jail time for speeding (under most circumstances) and driving too fast puts other people's lives in danger!
So I'd agree that a fine may be in order, and that such a fine should be in excess of the normal licensing costs as a punitive measure. But let's not imagine that copyright infringement is a horrific crime that warrants terrible punishment. Some of these fines are excessive to the point where there can be no expectation that a person can ever pay them, and the result is that a person's life is ruined forever. Permanently ruining someone's finances for minor copyright infringement? That's cruel and unusual punishment.
Re:Several reasons Horsesh*t (Score:5, Insightful)
Nail, meet head.
There is a perfect example of what's fucked up in the US.
Rape? Murder? You'll be out in a few years. Armed Robbery? Still be out in a few years.
Punch somebody in the nose while distributing Warez0rs? You're going to Rape Me in The Ass Prison for Life!
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that if a hospital used pirated software that caused someone's death they'd already be liable for negligance causing death. It hardly seems like new laws are needed for that.
Re:Life in prison? (Score:3, Insightful)
I totally disagree with this assertion. There are very few occupations of the "living wage" type that can be done without access to a general purpose computer. (I'm assuming you are talking about a GP computer, otherwise the list of jobs is practically zero).
Even when someone is convicted of a crime that has a punishment of a driving license suspension, most are given the ability to drive to and from work.
Re:thanks for backlash (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the same problem I have with state sponsored art of any kind. Why should any penny of my taxes go to floating the career of some guy whose creations I wouldn't even dignify with the title of art, whether it be a painting, music or whatever?
I don't claim to have any definite solution to this problem, but more taxes is not it.
Re:RTFB before you post on /. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Life in prison? (Score:3, Insightful)
In some cases, possible punishment does nothing to deter people.
While I understand your plight as a software writer, I really can't see a good reason for enacting 3rd strike rules and such for piracy. Jail is a very harsh place. Levy a monster fine against the person- that'll probably work better than the specter of jail- most people have no idea how bad jail can be, but they can understand $5000 losses.
Just my buck 50.
Re:Better question... (Score:5, Insightful)
In case you missed it, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' aide, Monica Gooding, instituted a screening policy where only ideologically compatible people were hired at the Dept. of Justice. According to DOJ hiring rules, this is a violation of their rules. Other Gonzales aides also fingered and fired those of whom were ideologically independent (i.e. not loyal Bushies). With that in mind, there really is no one left at the DOJ to ensure the current administration abides by the letter and spirit of the law.
Re:Totally Unconstitutional (Score:3, Insightful)
Broad financial interest for creating "criminals" (Score:1, Insightful)
Criminology studies pointed out, that since the USA privatized the prison system, the number of jailed prisoners have gone up sharply.
There is lots of money made by operating prisons, to the level, that some cities fight for getting prisons built in their jurisdiction, since it's a great source of municipial income. This is the complete opposite what happens in other parts of the world, where citizens resist to build jails in their neighbourhood.
It's a perfect circle: politicians are getting popular to be "tough on crime", investors and municipalities are profiting directly: the more people in the jails the better, and IP owners can't be happier to fuel the cause.
The suckers are the increasing number of people who are criminalized increasingly easier and of course the public, which pays for all of this elaborate corporate welfare. The federal government has to transfer less money if "smart" municipalities can generate revenues locally, private jail operators and IP owners happily pocket the profit from taxes.
Perfect little heaven for all the smart ones. The suckers? Well... they are just that: suckers.
Re:I'm sorry but .... (Score:3, Insightful)
If the people who scrape together and risk the money to pay the huge staff of creative people, for YEARS, to produce something that can only recoup all of that effort and cost once the work starts to sell find that there's simply no way to make it worth the trouble
Yeah, and there's nobody forcing this industry to spend what they spend, and no reason that our tax dollars should go towards protecting the business based on your premise that "it costs a lot to do it" - seriously, profit protection should be a cost laid to the one making the profits, how do I profit from DHS making special reports to a single industy entity ? Why should WE have to pay to get it done ? What they are describingg is literally the definition of facism (corporate/govt parterning, laws designed to protect the "connected" organizations only).
You first need good solid laws, with solid reasoning, that protect EVERYONE equally. If the DHS discovers that MY copyrighted work is being traded, or even FOSS is being abused, then they should have the SAME OBLIGATION to me to report the data. It's not right that one industry has coopted the use of DHS (tax dollars). As for the extreme penalty, wow, copying CDs is literally worse than murder and rape @! Make the penalty fit the crime, make it enough to discourage the behavior (fine, minimal jailtime - 30 days), and enforce it equally (ie: if a Senator/Judges/Cops daughter is caught, they go to jail).
Oh, and remember when that RIAA guy copied "This Movie Not Yet Rated" for internal review, then distributed and admitted to it... would you propose that he be put in jail ??? I bet not, and that exposes your bias here. Equal protection under the law, without it, you have facism.
So if I plant a half-burned CD in your trash... (Score:3, Insightful)
How many cars would I have to steal, how many people would I have to beat up to get the same punishment?
Re:except (Score:3, Insightful)
Look on the bright side, if this does go into effect and people start getting prison time I am reasonable sure there are more "pirates" then there are other crimes, and by the severity of the punishment it would obviously be more important to catch the pirates and lock them up! (They aren't wiretapping for gangs, drugs, or murderers, just copyright infringers and terrorists) So now we have jails FULL of copyright violators (see geeks)... Don't hafta work, don't hafta pay taxes, can't get productive jobs such as programmers, engineers, and whatnot. Everyone wins. The geeks get a nice cable TV + internet free ride of lan games and other geek socializing (look at that, geeks will socialize in real life) and the major corporations will get all the Visas they could ever dream of because all of the qualified workforce will be in prison! If there are any more REAL criminals left in the prisons at this point, the geeks can just trade tech support skills for protection from the guards!
Re:Move to Canada (Score:3, Insightful)
I know about the charter. The problem is that it is ineffective, as evidenced by the "hate speech" laws. I didn't say you don't have constitutional protections, I said there weren't any effective ones.
As to guns, I am aware of the vast difference in philosophy here. You have to remember, I live in a country which owes its existence to an armed populace. In fact, this is true twice over, since my own state, Vermont, obtained its independence from New York by forcibly resisting New York's tax collectors. Many of my own ancestors fought in the revolution against Britain, and some later had to flee Massachusetts, after participating in Daniel Shays' failed rebellion (against unfair taxation), to Vermont (then an independent republic), which gave the fugitives asylum (Col. Allen - who commanded the Vermont militia - went so far as to order his men that anyone trying to collect the bounty or carry out the death sentence on Mr. Shays was to be summarily shot). We are very serious about gun rights, because we know that a time can come when self-defence in the form of armed resistance is the only remaining option, whether against an individual aggressor or a tyrannical government.
So that is why "the right to keep and bear arms," is regarded as a fundamental right in the U.S., while it is not in Canada (or any Commonwealth nation, AFAIK). The more libertarian states have made sure not to have any restrictions on the number or type of weapons which may be owned, either, though the feds have steadily been trying to encroach in those areas. My own state goes so far as to not even have restrictions on concealed weapons, which we regard as a right (other states, except Alaska, require a license if they permit concealed-carry at all).
For what it is worth, I do not, personally, own a pistol (we have several hunting rifles and shotguns, in our house, but no pistols). I probably will in the future, though. Recent events have demonstrated, yet again, that people without guns are at the mercy of of those who have them. All the more reason to have guns in the hands of the "good guys," because the "bad guys" will always have them.