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?"
Why does the law punish attempts at all? (Score:0, Interesting)
Yes. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, this goes too far.
I promise vehement grass roots activism to defeat any elected official, Republican, Democrat, or Independent, who gets anywhere near voting for this. Full stop.
This will not sneak by in the dead of night. We are watching. You are either against this violent insanity, or you are against the voters.
I think it's fair (Score:1, Interesting)
No, I don't think so. Piracy is become rampant in today's world, and the government stepping up to make harsher penalties is fine by me. Piracy costs businesses money, as well as making it unfair to people who actually purchase legitimate goods.
But feel free to mod me down for a "wrong" opinion on slashdot, even though it's clear moderation abuse.
Minority Report anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Lifetime Crime (Score:5, Interesting)
RTFA
And exactly how is someone going to cause death while committing criminal copyright infringement?
Homeland secuirty to be arm of RIAA !!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure that is what everyone intended the anti-terrorism money to go to.
Re:This is brilliant! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Life in prison? (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, I agree that it's absurd that we can even think of locking people up for life for copying bits. There are easier and more humane ways to go about this. For example, probation, being forbidden to own/operate a computer, etc.
You can still be a totally productive member of society without a computer. Being locked up in a cell is hardly productive.
Tom
What I think is going to happen.... (Score:5, Interesting)
(mp/ri)aa will flood the various file sharing networks with dummy files, aka 'master_of_puppets.mp3' that are actualy null files of a certain size.
Random user tries to download file from *aa over the network.
*aa records IP address of user
*aa submits IP information to DoJ
Random user goes to jail for attempted piracy and *aa also files a civil suit.
PROFIT!
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Interesting)
FTA:
"Currently certain copyright crimes require someone to commit the "distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies" valued at over $2,500. The [Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007] would insert a new prohibition: actions that were 'intended to consist of' distribution."
So not only are we going to punish thought crime and what big brother thinks you're going to do, but this bill would even require Homeland Security to inform the RIAA and associated companies if one of us imports discs with "unauthorized fixations of the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance." Why don't we just reorganize the RIAA as another extension of the federal government? They're practically there anyway, and they'd be able to add an RIAA Piracy tax to our paychecks.
This does not bode well. This does not bode well at all. It would be interesting to see how current presidential candidates handle this proposition, but am I too jaded if I think it will never reach any debate podiums?
Re:Several reasons. (Score:3, Interesting)
Mod parent up: But does the RIAA have Dem support? (Score:3, Interesting)
Luckily they don't write good legislation (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, if it will bring life imprisonment (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Absurd (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Absurd (Score:4, Interesting)
We do not need a new law to cover negligence with respect to death. Such an act is called manslaughter and is already legal. This part of the bill is nothing more than an attempt to make copyright violation literally worse than killing someone.
There is no longer a value placed on human life. Only your potential to increase profits has any meaning. You don't see anything wrong with this?
Re:Several reasons. (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh big brother (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This is brilliant! (Score:3, Interesting)
I know it sounds absurd, but a few years back we had an auditor who had real trouble with free software, as she felt that without a paper trail (ie, receipts) you couldn't proove that you really had a licence (though she wouldn't accept the counter claim that a receipt or a paper licence doesn't proove anything either). In order to pass audit, we had to print out the licences used, for every piece of software and for each install. So we had several dozen copies of the GPL, several dozen copies of the Apace licence, several dozen copies of <insert FOSS Licence>, etc. Fortunately, that was just for free software running on Windows - the auditing people decided to just ignore the existence of Linux.
Re:Yes. (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, that is interesting. Sounds a lot like like a "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" deal, doesn't it?
life imprisonment for this will lead to dead cops (Score:3, Interesting)
Nice way to miss the obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
Free psychoanalysis (Score:4, Interesting)
The first thing that comes to your mind: "Alberto Gonzales"
Hmmm. I don't think you need any more help connecting the dots to your subconscious...
For want of mod points, a reply (Score:4, Interesting)
I also agree that while your vision of the future is a little extreme, it isn't because Congress and the IP industry isn't trying to achieve it. I'm guessing that the population will wake up before that and put a stop to this insanity. Primarily, I believe that the IP barons (a nice reference to the robber barons - I'll keep using that one) will price information so that most people can afford most of it. They do intend to maximize their revenue, and they can't price everyone out of it. But I do think that this IP gold rush will ultimately lead to exactly the situation that you describe: IP is owned by corporations instead of individuals, and individuals will be forced to buy back their culture and essential information from said corporations.
Now someone go and mod this guy up.
Re:Why does the law punish attempts at all? (Score:3, Interesting)
When was copyright infringement a criminal, and not civil matter?
IANAL ( but I play one on
Can I sue you if we have a contract, you try to breach it, but fail?
Jefferson said it best (Score:2, Interesting)
This has nothing to do with enhancing market competition or bettering society but is absolutely about ensuring profit for large corporations who are really the only entities that can afford the patenting process.
Re:Better question... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is getting old... (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Introduce bill with ridiculous provisions
2) Public upset over ridiculous provisions
3) Remove ridiculous provisions
4) Pass the rest of the bill, which by itself would still be ridiculous, but now everyone's happy that they "fought The Man" and won.
5) Slowly expand power and scope of existing bill until you can do really silly things with it.
Enjoy getting your computers confiscated by The Man (sorry, "Civil Asset Forfeiture") just because you have Shareaza installed. Also enjoy having Homeland Security (a government agency) notify the RIAA (a private company) when you come back home with a bootleg tape of that concert you went to. Don't forget to smile when you get sentenced to many years in prison and many tens of thousands of dollars in fines because you downloaded MP3's of an out-of-circulation album. I'm sure you all have the tens of thousands of dollars required to fight all that in court and win, right? And you can do without our assets or money or liberty while you're fighting it...
How does that line go again? "... with liberty and justice for all* "
* liberty and justice sold separately
When ya'll get sick of this crap, Canada and Mexico are both just a few hours drive away.
Re:What I think is going to happen.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Does that actually work in US law?
We had a case like that here in Sweden recently: someone found a backpack filled with drugs in a basement somewhere. The police replaced the drugs with flour and waited to see who was going to pick it up.
Someone picked it up and got arrested. He was quickly released, since he denied any knowledge about drugs (and the backpack didn't contain any when he took it), and "possession of flour" isn't a crime.
Hidden easter egg (Score:3, Interesting)
Permit more wiretaps for piracy investigations.
and:
Allow computers to be seized more readily.
This is a fascinating, although a bit not-so-obviously coincidence with what's happening here in germany. One of our politicians, wolfgang schaeuble, currently tries to pass a new law which allows the police and secret services to secretely spy on your computers. All in the name of counter-terrorism. What he tells the german people is that there is a great deal of danger coming from islamistic fundamentals, left-wing fundamentals, right-wing fundamentals. If passed, this law enables the police to spy on literally everyones computer.
This ippa2007 tries to implement instruments which could be used to seize your computers and to wiretap you. All in the name of piracy prevention. If passed it will give the police the means to seize the computers of a majority of U.S. citizens. It can be used to criminalize each and everyone. If passed, this law enables the police to seize literally everyones computer.
Yt,
Gunnar
Re:Several reasons Horsesh*t (Score:5, Interesting)
This is slashdot, it's not like the readers aren't familiar with the issue at hand.
Software copyright infringement is like........software copyright infringement.
I think that should encompass all the idiosyncratic details related to the issue at hand without blurring the issue. An imperfect analogy here only serves to derail the topic by bringing to light all the flaws in the analogy rather than the original point of discussion. An analogy is only useful when the issue isn't clear. This is slashdot and it's crystal clear. Points should stand upon their own merit rather than a reference to an imperfect analogy.
Re:Ownership Society (Score:1, Interesting)