New US Anti-Piracy Bill..

[MOVIEGEEK]

will introduce more law enforcement powers and longer sentences:

"Such willful attempts at piracy, even if they fail, could be punished by up to 10 years in prison."

http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6064016.html?part=rss&tag=6064016&subj=news

[bendixG15]

Do the link.

It's a hard read......

[edDV]

Time to fight back for consumer rights.

I hear Leo LaPorte is organizing an effort. Main focus is http://www.eff.org/. We need to get up off our duff.

[BJ_M]

criminal penalties for copyright infringement originally created by the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 from five years to 10 years (and 10 years to 20 years for subsequent offences). The NET Act targets noncommercial piracy including posting copyrighted photos, videos or news articles on a Web site

nasty stuff -- rape and even murder can draw less time ....


not without precedence though -- the "Kennedy-Kassebaum bill" for health insurance reform legislation make criminal penalties for miscoding a Medicare form tougher than penalties for robbery or rape.. in fact the health (and some other things ) bussness is much the same mess as the digital mess above ... http://www.forhealthfreedom.org



anymore ranting on this falls into a political discussion on my part ....

[SilverBlade]

Who says Law can't be purchased.

Good thing I'm in Canada *thumbs his nose at the US Senate*.

[drjtech]

I hear Leo LaPorte is organizing an effort. Main focus is http://www.eff.org/. We need to get up off our duff.

I second the motion that we support the EFF. By support I mean financial support. I contribute $100 a year and I've never regretted it.

-drj

[Morse2]

Hi guys;

Horrible news for the consumer if such a travesty passes - just think of all the future 'pay per use' services that used to be free (audio recording off analog radio, vcr recording, etc).

Here's a possible way to beat it - register to vote, if you are not already, THEN contact your congresscritter IMMEDIATELY. Let them know that you vote in every single election and that your vote will be decided by this ONE ISSUE (i.e. if they vote for the bill, you will vote against them no matter WHAT your 'registered political affiliation'). One letter from a registered voter is usually regarded as being "worth" more than one hundred votes (i.e. only one person in a hundred who actually feels a certain way will bother to write a letter). Avoid form letters, since congressional staffers don't 'weight' the importance of form letters the same as "in person" kinds of letters.

When writing a "nudge letter", 1. Keep it short and on-point, 2. Keep it clean (no obscenities, though what this bill will do to the US consumer is certainly obscene!), 3. No threats!!! Failing to follow these guidelines will get you labelled as a "nut" and do more damage than good.

Remember - on point, short, and let 'em know that you WILL VOTE AGAINST THEM FROM HERE ON OUT if they go the wrong way.

All the best,
Morse

[dvdguy4]

Ive never voted in my life but with this new bill, I just might have to now. Who's really running ths country of mine? Thats a good question and I cant give you the answer.

[BJ_M]

lets steer away from politics please .....

[dvdguy4]

lets steer away from politics please .....

Yea I thing I said the wrong thing. Thanks. I need to vent for a brief moment. Thanks BJ_M

[Morse2]

My apologies BJ_M;

Hope I have not strayed over the line - but since this bill would make everyone who has ever backed up or moved to HDD storeage a storebought DVD or CD a FELON, it seemed like it was "on topic" for a video help forum. All I want is for our rights as consumers to be protected, and unfortunately this seems to be a case where the "outside world" has butted in, threatening every media PC builder with loss of equipment, jail time, etc.

If this bill passes, just owning a copy of DVD Decrypter will net you the same jail time as an illegally owned machine-gun in the US. That's a very very scary thought.

Again, sorry if I strayed over the line, I will be more careful, and will re-edit the post to eliminate any possible "R vs D" issues.
Morse

[SilverBlade]

Lets see..if this law passes..what technologies would be illegal:

CD/DVD burners, floopy discs, USB drives, mp3 players, photocopiers, VCR's, DVD recorders, anything with time-shifting abilities, Video cameras, camcorders, Digital cameras, RCA cables, cassettes, minidiscs, 'Copy/paste' commands...

In fast..lets just make everything electronical illegal, including the servers which run the internet.

[BJ_M]

they just updated the link in the first post above with some more info

http://news.com.com/Congress%20readies%20new%20digital%20copyright%20bill/2100-1028_3-...l?tag=nefd.top

[MOVIEGEEK]

I especially liked this one:

The NET Act targets noncommercial piracy including posting copyrighted photos, videos or news articles on a Web site if the value exceeds $1,000.

Might as well shut down the internet.

[SilverBlade]

The NET Act targets noncommercial piracy including posting copyrighted photos, videos or news articles on a Web site if the value exceeds $1,000.

This will pretty much make posting 'fan' websites of television shows and movies illegal.

[InXess]

Deep pockets, Alzheimer's or crack are the only things that could inspire such law.

[dvdguy4]

They really think this is gonna stop people from backing up stuff or recording a show on a vcr? Time will tell

[Morse2]

The whole thing is surreal - the tying of "noncommercial piracy" (Fair Use) of recorded material to "terrorism" by the sponsors of this travesty is like something out of a Kafka story (or maybe an Orwellian nightmare?).

Maybe the scariest thing of all is that no one in the "general public" appears to be paying attention - which is just how the DMCA got passed in the first place.

Spread the word and maybe our rights will last a little longer!

Morse

[ROF]

Does this mean the personal copier I purchased last year would be considered an illegal piece of hardware? I'd imagine that somewhere along the line specific activity must be associated with a product before the product itself is considered illegal.

[adam]

Folks you are all misinterpreting the effects of this bill. It does not make any additional devices/software illegal at all, rather it further limits what you can do with already illegal devices/software and imposes greater sanctions when you do. The only real substantive change that the bill will bring is that it will make attempt to commit copyright infringement a crime. Other than that, its just an increase in penalties and enforcement powers.

Morse2: Fair Use acts are not non-commercial piracy. If its Fair Use then its legal under current Copyright Law or under the proposed changes.

SilverBlade: your last post quotes the NET Act. That was passed back in 1997, so you can see that it does not prohibit fan sites and such. Much of this activity is protected under Fair Use and that which isn't usually falls well below the required $1000 worth of damages anyway.

[dvdguy4]

Folks you are all misinterpreting the effects of this bill. It does not make any additional devices/software illegal at all, rather it further limits what you can do with already illegal devices/software and imposes greater sanctions when you do. The only real substantive change that the bill will bring is that it will make attempt to commit copyright infringement a crime. Other than that, its just an increase in penalties and enforcement powers.

Morse2: Fair Use acts are not non-commercial piracy. If its Fair Use then its legal under current Copyright Law or under the proposed changes.

SilverBlade: your last post quotes the NET Act. That was passed back in 1997, so you can see that it does not prohibit fan sites and such. Much of this activity is protected under Fair Use and that which isn't usually falls well below the required $1000 worth of damages anyway.

Adam thats what your here for, to correct all of us. Havent really seen any post from you lately. Busy at the office? Nice to see that your still here.

[BJ_M]

adam = i read the article to say that they are NOT allowing fair use in the same was as present - see:

It also represents a political setback for critics of expanding copyright law, who have been backing federal legislation that veers in the opposite direction and permits bypassing copy protection for "fair use" purposes. That bill--introduced in 2002 by Rep. Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat--has been bottled up in a subcommittee ever since.

this also is worrisome:

...that mere communication about the means of accomplishing a hack would be subject to penalties," said Peter Jaszi, who teaches copyright law at American University and is critical of attempts to expand it.

also VERY scary is "civil asset forfeiture penalties.........Criminal asset forfeiture will be done following the rules established by federal drug laws." -- we all know how much this is abused in drug enforcement (they take assets BEFORE found guilty and getting them back sometimes is imposable) ..

[adam]

Oh I agree its scary.

Re-read that first quote again though. It is referring to a different bill which would narrow the DMCA in the name of protecting Fair Use. THAT bill would have changed Fair Use, or actually more like clarified it. The quote is saying that this new bill shows a "political setback" to the prior bill. It shows that there is clear opposition to it. Naturally if there are politicians pushing to expand the DMCA then they are not going to be interested in a bill that would narrow it. That quote does not say that this anti-piracy bill will actually change or narrow Fair Use. It just has no direct effect on it, you can look at the proposed changes and see that what qualifies as Fair Use will be the same. Now I'm talking about substantive issues here, actual physical laws and what they are intended to accomplish. In other words, if you hired a good lawyer and got a legal opinion as to whether Fair Use protected any given action, the answer would not change before or after the passing of this bill. All that could change would be that the lawyer would say, well its still illegal but now you can lose your pants AND your shirt over it.

But anytime a law is expanded it has a chilling effect. Many individuals will forgo actions that could be Fair Use, because now even starting the process could carry criminal penalties.

As for the second quote, I do think that's such an extreme example that its almost meaningless since just talking about committing a crime of any kind can almost never amount to attempt, which is the charge that this bill creates and what the quote was obviously referring to. But again, if its Fair Use now it still will be if this bill passes. The scary part is that there are much higher stakes if you're wrong and its not Fair Use and, once you start the process there is no going back.

[adam]

I'm reading my post and I think even I'm having a hard time understanding what I'm saying. Its hard to explain. Basically, the bill amends language in certain statutes including 1201 (DMCA). The portion of the DMCA that lists what is or is not an infringement is not altered by this bill. That's why I say that Fair Use is left unchanged and that there is no substantive change. Under this bill you still apply the DMCA the same way to the action, and Fair Use still exempts the same things.

[BJ_M]

ok -- they whole article is a little unclear on several issues (and was re-written if you notice)

[Morse2]

I certainly hope you are right Adam, in your appraisal that no restrictions on Fair Use of legally purchased and held content would occur. However, my reading of the situation is gloomier.

"Fair Use" is in the eye of the beholder these days. The RIAA recently claimed that ripping a CD you had legally purchased into your own HDD constituted criminal infringement (i.e. "not Fair Use") and I've no doubt the MPAA will argue similarly in the near future about building media PC's by ripping DVD's into HDD (again with the proviso that only DVD's you had legally purchased and continued ownership of were to go into your own legally held PC). That's if you use something like Isobuster to rip images with CSS intact and all the dross included. If you're removing CSS so that you can trim the bulk of the contents of useless fluff (or in some cases remove downright objectionable material), I think they'd really "have a cow".

The provisions against possessing hardware that can be used to make illegal copies have issues too - NEC DVD burners will read copy protected CD's for ripping just fine, whereas Liteons will not. Are NEC's to be illegal yet Liteons legal? Reading the language of the bill to this non-lawyer seems to say "yes". That's problematical to the legit user from another perspective - older "copy protection" on CD's consisted of placing errors on the disks which NEC's are good at ignoring. Thus the bill appears to be saying "thou shalt not have a DVD burner that can read a scratched CD".

As far as REAL piracy is concerned, I'm all for clamping down on it. I purchase all of my content and would be happy to see some real penalties applied to countries like China and India that tolerate large-scale piracy to be conducted openly (commercially pressed DVD's that are obvious bootlegs for sale in plain sight....). But the idea of potentially criminalizing media PC builders is enough to make me say "if they do that, I've bought my last work of art that has an RIAA/MPAA imprimature" (easy to do with the several thousands of DVD's and CD's in my library already - anyway, I'm an old f**t who doesn't much care for most of the new noise that's being called music....).

With all the noise coming out of Foggy Bottom about evil consumers exercising "Fair Use" copying, where's the effort to penalize countries that tolerate piracy? And what's this nonsense about "piracy tools" being used to generate revenue for terrorists? Those are some "weapons of mass distraction" I'd like to see documented rather than used as a smokescreen to pass new legislation.

All the best,
Morse

[InXess]

from the article:

The 24-page bill is a far-reaching medley of different proposals cobbled together. One would, for instance, create a new federal crime of just trying to commit copyright infringement. Such willful attempts at piracy, even if they fail, could be punished by up to 10 years in prison.

while in US courts consider beheadings for copyright infringement London court has dismissed the lawsuit against Dan Brown in the civil case of "The Da Vinci Code". Imagine what could have happened to this guy if he was brought to "justice" in US, prison? (under a proposed law) I'm exagerrating here but this is alarming.

Folks you are all misinterpreting the effects of this bill. It does not make any additional devices/software illegal at all, rather it further limits what you can do with already illegal devices/software and imposes greater sanctions when you do. The only real substantive change that the bill will bring is that it will make attempt to commit copyright infringement a crime. Other than that, its just an increase in penalties and enforcement powers.
.

JUST an increase? You sound like everything is just fine. If so then I'm all for piracy... Defrauding billions (Enron) sounds like peanuts compared to draconian penalties for what has been so far mainly a civil law domain. Since the definitions in this area are very vague it opens the doors to all sorts of possible abuses. Soon Stalin's Russia will appear more like a kindergarten...

[dvdguy4]

Do you think it will stand up in the surpreme court ?

[Panash]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1943255,00.asp

[dvdguy4]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1943255,00.asp

Interesting article I must say. Maybe we all move to France. I know my wife would like that.