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?"
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.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Informative)
As far as I can tell, Congress didn't even care to look at, much less vote on it. The only difference this time is that the Attorney General is attempting to submit the law himself to give it more credibility. (It was previously backed by Rep. Lamar S. Smith (R) of Texas.) My hope is that it will end up in the same dustbin as the last attempt.
Mod parent up: But does the RIAA have Dem support? (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Like Gonzales has any credibility left.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But I like an idea in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"
The Senate's entire function is to pass laws by ceil(2/3*SenatePopulation)+1 majority. The House's entire function is to repeal laws by floor(1/3*HousePopulation)+1 minority.
See how many bad laws stay on the books then.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Funny)
That would be great! They would try to hold someone accountable under the IPPA2007 law, but would find that no lawyers, prosecutors, or judges could recall exactly what part of the law had been violated, and then find that no one actually wrote the law down. In the end, the person would still be convicted though, because everyone knows they broke the law, they just can't remember how.
-Rick
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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?
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: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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (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: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.
Life in prison? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Life in prison? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
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.
This is brilliant! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is brilliant! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This is brilliant! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, I thought life imprisonment and civil forfeiture for an attempted crime was impossible, too. Stupid me.
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.
Re:This is brilliant! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (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!
Crazy (Score:5, Informative)
Minority Report anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Homeland secuirty to be arm of RIAA !!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure that is what everyone intended the anti-terrorism money to go to.
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?
"probably?" (Score:5, Informative)
Would it be too much to ask that you find out Rep. John Conyer's position - hell, even his name would be an improvement, and perhaps understanding why Rep. Smith is considered "key" (hint: check the committees) - before you start tarring him with the same brush as Rep. Lamar Smith?
-Richard Campbell.
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.
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: (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 d
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Profit for the *AA. Not for the public, who pay IIRC ~$40,000 per year to keep someone incarcerated. And that's operating costs, never mind the capital costs of building prisons, or the costs of maintaining the legal system to put them into prison.
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
Obligatory Simpsons (Score:3, Funny)
Death to tyrants (Score:5, Insightful)
The only good politician is tortured and dead.
Well, if it will bring life imprisonment (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Oh big brother (Score:4, Interesting)
life imprisonment for this will lead to dead cops (Score:3, Interesting)
Now with the ability to Wiretap the Net (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
This goes way WAY too far (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright and patent violations should not be criminal penalties, period.
Re:Why does the law punish attempts at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why does the law punish attempts at all? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why does the law punish attempts at all? (Score:5, Funny)
Better question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Better question... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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...
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.
Oblig. Simpsons reference (Score:5, Funny)
RTFB before you post on /. (Score:4, Informative)
That seems pretty damn reasonable to me.
But hey...what do I know? I just RTFB.
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:Why does the law punish attempts at all? (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why does the law punish attempts at all? (Score:5, Funny)
A metal oxide with a deadly weapon still sounds pretty scary, though.
Re:Why does the law punish attempts at all? (Score:5, Funny)
Several reasons. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Several reasons. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Several reasons. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Several reasons Horsesh*t (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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 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: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!
Nice way to miss the obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Why does the law punish attempts at all? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why does the law punish attempts at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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?
Re: (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
Re:Why does the law punish attempts at all? (Score:5, 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: (Score:3, Funny)
One thought at a time, Citizen. One thought at a time.
Re:Why does the law punish attempts at all? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why does the law punish attempts at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lifetime Crime (Score:5, Interesting)
RTFA
And exactly how is someone going to cause death while committing criminal copyright infringement?
Re:Lifetime Crime (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Now THAT'S terrorism.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Create a new crime of life imprisonment for using pirated software. Anyone using counterfeit products who "recklessly causes or attempts to cause death" can be imprisoned for life. During a conference call, Justice Department officials gave the example of a hospital using pirated software instead of paying for it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Absurd (Score:4, Insightful)
Riiight... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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: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: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?
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.
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:thanks for backlash (Score:4, Informative)
No, silly laws like these are just the attempt to patch dikes that have already broken down. You can't retrofit the water into the ocean just by painting a "do not flow in" sign in big threatening letters on the remnants of the broken dike.
The real solution to this is not more repression, it's legalizing copying of copyrighted material, by imposing a music/movie flat tax on the population; or perhaps just on HDD and DVD media. Everyone is sharing files nowadays, and that's not going away. So let's legalize it, and compensate the copyright holders collectively. That's the only decent thing to do. Criminalizing the whole population for something everyone does is so typical of dictatorships, let's not copy their ruthless style of governance anymore.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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.