Share A Movie, Get Jail Time!!!

[Roundabout]

From CNET:
November 12,2003

A forthcoming copyright bill backed by key U.S. senators would place file swappers in prison for up to three years if they have a copy of even one prerelease movie in their shared folders.

In addition to the prison term, the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act would punish making such movies available on a public "computer network" as a federal felony with a fine of up to $250,000. It would not require that any copyright infringement actually take place.

Senators John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., plan to introduce the legislation at a press conference in Washington, D.C., on Thursday. Joining them at the event will be actress Bo Derek, Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) President Jack Valenti, and Mitch Bainwol, chairman of the Recording Industry Association of America.

Hollywood studios have fretted for years about Internet distribution of prerelease movies, meaning films that have not appeared on DVD or in theaters. Footage of "Star Wars: Episode II," "Tomb Raider" and "The Hulk," has reportedly surfaced on peer-to-peer networks before their commercial distribution. In September, the major studios responded by halting their normal practice of sending DVD "screeners" to Academy Award judges.

A copy of the bill seen by CNET News.com, marked "Discussion Draft," represents one of the fiercest attacks yet on peer-to-peer networks from copyright holders' allies on Capitol Hill.

The threat of a three-year prison term kicks in when anyone makes an illicit copy of a movie "available on a computer network accessible to members of the public," when the film "was intended for commercial distribution but had not been so distributed at the time." Once the film is commercially distributed, the felony penalties appear to no longer apply.

Peter Jaszi, a professor at American University who teaches copyright law, said he is "deeply troubled" by the wording of the draft legislation, because it does not say any actual copyright infringement must take place--only that the file be available in a shared folder, Web site or FTP (File Transfer Protocol) site. "It says we don't care if anybody got any of these copies," Jaszi said. "We're going to conclude that at least 10 people did. It relieves the copyright owner of having to prove that any violation of their rights actually happened."

MPAA spokesman Rich Taylor said "this legislation will go a long way toward targeting one of the most serious contributors to piracy right now, which is the practice of camcording motion pictures. It's the first time the U.S. Senate has had legislation that specifically addresses the threat of camcording."

"Piracy for too long has been high-reward and low-risk," Taylor said. "Legislation such as that being introduced tomorrow will go a long way toward changing that equation."

The Cornyn-Feinstein bill also creates another federal felony, punishable by up to five years in prison, for using "an audiovisual recording device" in a movie theater to make a copy of a film and boosts civil penalties available to MPAA member companies when suing over prerelease movies placed on the Internet.

Cornyn's office did not respond to a request for comment. "Copyright piracy is a serious threat not only to the entertainment industry, but also to a U.S. economy struggling to get back on its feet," Cornyn said in a statement. Senators Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., are co-sponsors of the bill.

A related proposal has been introduced in the House of Representatives. It covers surreptitious recording in theaters but does not include the three-year prison term for making a prerelease movie available online.


Bo Derek? Are you guys still keeping those copies of "10" on your HARD drives?

[Lucifers_Ghost]

Ouuuuuuuch!

Makes me glad that I dont have a camcorder

Seriously though, I understand why the industry is doing it. If they are "losing" money, then they do have to protect themselves. I suppose.

I'm not convined they are losing THAT much money to piracy. How much are these companies making each year for the last say 3 years compared to a 3 year period 15 years ago?

*shrug*

[pacmania_2001]

Nothing like becoming more hated. All they do is further alienate their customers into hating them more.

I think the people behind the MPAA and RIAA need to sit down and actually have a think about the methods they are using and what adverse effects they are having.

[mar-mar]

the industry is quick to say that they don't make money from the theater because of all the middle men they have to pay back for makin the movie and any profits after is not really much, they bread and butter they say is in dvd sales and video and their sayin if you already have copies for free and sharing them and makin them spread like a virus to other users that it tremedously reflects their sells.

if people don't buy dvd and video of their movie then somethings wrong

[adam]

I realize you are just quoting, but I don't understand the argument that this bill would penalyze people even if no copyright infringment had taken place. It makes it illegal to distribute prerelease movies. Well how can you have an unrealeased movie in digital form without violating the copyright, much less distribute that file legally.

I personally see absolutely no problem with this aspect of the bill. I think the argument that it bypasses proving infringment is ridiculous.

The real problem is that it bypasses intent. It assumes that simply because the file is located in a shared directory that you have the intention of distributing it. If that same file were located in another directory on your computer, you would be safe...at least from this law. Courts have historically been extremely critical of legislation which relieves prosecutors from having to prove men's rea (guilty intent.) Otherwise, I really see no problem with this law. It seems a little ridiculous at first to impose serious jail time on someone who illegally shares copyrighted material, but the exponential effect is obvious. Its not just that you sent the file to 10 people, its that those 10 people sent it to another 10 people and so on.

If you create a virus and send it to only 10 people, but it ends up affecting millions, should you only be punished for the intial wave of damage it created? I think not. Maybe the punishment here doesn't fit the crime, but it doesn't change the fact that the person still did something morally and legally wrong.

I know the MPAA is a big conglomerate bully, but they are just doing their job. They may use guerilla tactics, but remember who the real villians are. I have no sympathy for someone who intentionally violates copyright laws and then tries to blame it on the industry and their price fixing, because they are in fact a part of the problem. You can't justify stealing just because the price is too high. A DVD is not a necessity. If you are that opposed to DVD prices than you should just do the responsible thing and go without.

BTW: I have met John Cornyn several times and I can truly say that he is a great man. Hate the legislation if you want, but realize that many of our legislators are genuinely doing what they feel is in the best interest of the public.

[Lucifers_Ghost]

BTW: I have met John Cornyn several times and I can truly say that he is a great man. Hate the legislation if you want, but realize that many of our legislators are genuinely doing what they feel is in the best interest of the public.

I hate to say this, but I generally disagree with that statement. Senators,
in fact, politicians as a group, generally dont do anything "in the best interest of the public" ... as far as I am concerned. They will either a) do what is best for them and their campaign, and b) are way too often swayed by money/corporation. The public is usually a distant afterthought.

This is a matter of opinion and this topic, along with religion, will always entice rounds of flaming and arguing. This is of course, not my intent. I am just giving my opinion.

I hope this doesnt pis* anyone off.


Edit: I would like to add that this Mr. Cornyn may be the exception to the rule. I dont know anything about him. I am just giving a general overall opinion.

[adam]

I hate to say this, but I generally disagree with that statement.

No you don't. Nothing in your post is in disagreement with anything in my post. You said you believe politicians as a whole are self interested and essentially slaves to their interest groups, and I agree. All I said is that "many" politicians are not like this, not most. Yes I think Cornyn is one of these exceptions.

[jaxxboss]

Well, when little Johnny goes to visit Gramps and downloads a movie and then gramps gets nailed and has to be somebody's %itch in d block, I'm sure it will be better than Little johnny going to the joint.

Of course college roommates never use each others computer in the dorm room.

Then there is the oddball panty raider that decides to break into someones house and d/l files and leave their folder open to share.

I know, I know, Stupid and lame examples, but hey, If Clinton used the ole "depends on what the meaning of is is" then I'm sure the ole "He left my panties on the clothes line, but d/l files on my PC" routine may work.

[Colindale]

??I hope this doesnt pis* anyone off. ??

Not me brother!.

American politicians are controlled by lobby groups, they will finance the
senators to push thier own agenda's.

Thats how Democracy works in the U.S.

[Lucifers_Ghost]

No you don't. Nothing in your post is in disagreement with anything in my post. You said you believe politicians as a whole are self interested and essentially slaves to their interest groups, and I agree. All I said is that "many" politicians are not like this, not most. Yes I think Cornyn is one of these exceptions.

The part I disagreed with is that you said that politicians do what is in the best interest of the public. I dont think that they do. Doing what is best for them, their campaign, and corporate sponsors, isnt benefitting the public.[/quote]

[adam]

jaxxboss, with any law that criminizes possession you still have to prove that the defendant knew they were in possession. Its not illegal to have cocaine on your person if someone planted it there and you didn't know it, yet few people would argue that criminalizing possession of cocaine is unreasonable.

[Lucifers_Ghost]

jaxxboss, with any law that criminizes possession you still have to prove that the defendant knew they were in possession. Its not illegal to have cocaine on your person if someone planted it there and you didn't know it, yet few people would argue that criminalizing possession of cocaine is unreasonable.

But wouldnt the part of the legislation about not having to prove intent to distribute supercede the burden of proof?

In the case of your son distributing it without your knowledge, the fact that is that the file is on your computer in a shared directory. So intent or knowledge would be irrelevant would it not?

[adam]

Once again Lucifers_Ghost I said that many politicians are interested in what's best for the public. I think its extremely short sided to assume that out of 200 senators every single one of them is bought and paid for. "Many" does not constitute a majority, so I still don't see how we are in disagreement....This is a good thing

[mysticgohan17]

Hollywood studios have fretted for years about Internet distribution of prerelease movies, meaning films that have not appeared on DVD or in theaters. Footage of "Star Wars: Episode II," "Tomb Raider" and "The Hulk," has reportedly surfaced on peer-to-peer networks before their commercial distribution.

so after they're on DVD, they stop caring?

[jaxxboss]

irrelevant?, But I never been to the zoo !

intent beyond a reasonable doubt, willfull knowledge, extreme malice....
I dont know buddy. All I know is that my kid is learning more and more and will know more about computers than me very soon(if not already).
Am I worried? Nah. Will I be worried as I'm underneath bubba in the rec room....., maybe.

[adam]

No not at all. Intent to distribute and knowledge of possession are entirely different things.

Its already illegal to be in possession of bootlegged material, and its already illegal to distribute copyrighted matieral without express permission. There is no new "common law" being created here. All this bill does is increase the penalty for engaging in this behavior, and really it eliminates ONE of the required elements required to prove illegal distribution.

Instead of having to prove that they knowlingly possessed the copyrighted material and knowlingly distributed it, you can get them on distribution as long as the file resides in a shared directory. But obviously you've still got to prove that they commit the crime and that requires knowledge of possession.

Sorry to harp on cocaine, but it really makes a good analogy. I don't know the specifics, but if you possess above a certain weight of cocaine than it is assumed that you have the intent to distribute, which carries with it additional criminal penalties. You still have to prove they had knowledge of possession of the cocaine (put the file there or allowed someone else to) but you can assume an intent to distribute as long as you possess a certain amount of it, (file located in a shared directory.)

[Roundabout]

Not to try and stir up too much, my opinion is:

1. The punishment does not fit the crime. There's no room for murderers, rapists, etc. in jails, so they want to throw John Q. Public in there for something that should be a misdemeanor at best?

2. Nice to see that your tax dollars are paying for senators to do "important stuff" like sit around and think up punishments for these "crimes" - wonder who thought up the penalties? Maybe the movie studios "suggested" it? Be interesting to know. Are the studios going to reimburse the taxpayers for incarceration of all these "criminals"?

3. They should have to prove intent, and that the file was actually shared. There's already been enough problems with the "guilty until proven innocent" approach by the RIAA.

4. If you own a camcorder, don't bring it to a movie theater.

5. I don't have a problem with their being some type of penalty for sharing illegal files, I just think this is beyond what it necessary. There are laws on the books now that should be enforced. Special legislation reeks of special interest lobbies.

6. "Copyright piracy is a serious threat not only to the entertainment industry, but also to a U.S. economy struggling to get back on its feet," Cornyn said in a statement" - not to get too political, but they should be thinking about Iraq, the budget deficit, etc. instead of worrying if Johnny has a copy of an unreleased movie on his hard drive.

Just my 2 cents. Your opinion may vary.

Also, as I mentioned above (out of curiosity) what does a washed up actress like Bo Derek have to do with this? Does she have a dog in this fight?

[pacmania_2001]

America: The best democracy money can buy

I think that this is an example of corporations having greater influence over the government then the people who elected them. I'm sure if a poll was taken in a national paper that the majority of people would be against the punishment, maybe not the bill.

[Roundabout]

I'm sure if a poll was taken in a national paper that the majority of people would be against the punishment, maybe not the bill.

I agree 100%. The punishment is out of line for the alleged crime. This is just more special interests legislation shoved down our throats, like the DMCA. Flawed legislation is worse than no legislation. Let the studios go after people on their dime, I don't want (as a taxpayer) to pay for their court costs and incarceration costs. Notice that no one has spoken about this part of the equation.
Of course, that's just me. I saw a sign on the highway that says there is a $1000.00 fine for littering. I think that is extreme. I never throw trash out on the road myself, but I think the punishment is inappropriate. I would make the offender spend "X" amount of time cleaning up trash along the highway instead, a much more fitting punishment.
There has to be a better answer than this type of ridiculous legislation. Sooner or later, there will be a backlash. Not that I am advocating having illegal copies of movies, but I think the priorities of law enforcement are very much misplaced in this country.
I noticed that the RIAA will be present at the introduction of this legislation - no reason stated. This is intended for the benefit of the MPAA, so what is the RIAA doing there? Maybe to lobby for the same penalties for having songs in the shared folder on your hard drive? Hmmmm. :P

[adam]

Just to point something out, this bill is only in draft form. Introducing a proposed bill is much like filing a lawsuit, you always ask for more than you think you can get because alot of what you ask for will get washed out. Its just a bargaining technique, your opening offer should always be higher than you think you are entitled to. Its highly likely that this bill will be modified before ratification, or that like hundreds of other bills it will just never be ratified.

[tgpo]

On a side note, I personally give all of you permission to resale and copy my movies, as long as you give me half

[Gazorgan]

Let's get to the meat:

What about Bittorent? I mean you can have most of a movie on your drive, is this the same thing? Are you actually sharing? Does uploading 20 MB's of a 1.4 GB movie count when you only have 1/4 of hte movie? An incomplete random 20%?

What about the actual torrent file? The tracker? The source website?
None of these actually have a movie on them, in any way.

And it's not a 'shared folder', you aren't sharing any folders. I think semantics will kill this bill, it's targeted against Kazaa, which is more an RIAA animal than MPAA.

I'm not advocating or admitting anything, I'm telling you what I see when I wear my grey hat and go looking.

[MOVIEGEEK]

On a side note, I personally give all of you permission to resale and copy my movies, as long as you give me half

You got it buddy.

As to the topic at hand,an independant group release a study that showed most prereleases were uploaded to P2P by movie studio personnel.

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/10242003b.php

[tgpo]

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/4480.cfm

[bugster]

An interesting take on this story and the Senators proposing it, can be found here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/33988.html

[Roundabout]

From that article that bugster mentioned:

"The former Mayor of San Francisco, Feinstein received $242,066 from the entertainment industry in her most recent Senate race, making her the pigopolists third favorite Senator, after Hillary Clinton and John McCain."

And we wonder why these things get passed in the first place. They're looking out for us, oh yeah.
One thing Adam said about "many politicians are interested in what's best for the public" - I disagree. I would say "A few politicians are interested in what's best for the public - very, very few"

[RabidDog]

I think most people are showing a very nieve view of politics. simply saying that all politicians are in it for themselves or corporations. Corporations dont vote, people do. The only reason that ploiticos have to suck up to corps is because they need their money for the campaign trail. They then have to promise them something in return. State funded parties would get round this reliance on big money to some degree. Newspaper owners (and tv station owners) also wield disproportionate power due to their ability to shape the news and also the agenda.

[Gazorgan]

A politicians only skill set is swaying the masses into voting for them. That's it. Most are totally incompetent managers that would never make it in the private sector. Bill Clinton would be hitting-on legal aids in some county courthouse if it wasnt' for his ambitious wife.

There are very, very few exceptions. Some politicians have other jobs and jump in because they get fed up with the BS.

Simply impose term limits for all national offices. 2 terms for senator and 4 for House. That will end a lot of graph and corruption