Music downloaders face increased penalties

[IglooDame]

I think it's the invocation of civil forfeiture laws that scares me most...

From CNet

For the last few years, a coalition of technology companies, academics and computer programmers has been trying to persuade Congress to scale back the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Now Congress is preparing to do precisely the opposite. A proposed copyright law seen by CNET News.com would expand the DMCA's restrictions on software that can bypass copy protections and grant federal police more wiretapping and enforcement powers.

The draft legislation, created by the Bush administration and backed by Rep. Lamar Smith, already enjoys the support of large copyright holders such as the Recording Industry Association of America. Smith is the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees intellectual-property law.

Smith's press secretary, Terry Shawn, said Friday that the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2006 is expected to "be introduced in the near future."

"The bill as a whole does a lot of good things," said Keith Kupferschmid, vice president for intellectual property and enforcement at the Software and Information Industry Association in Washington, D.C. "It gives the (Justice Department) the ability to do things to combat IP crime that they now can't presently do."

During a speech in November, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales endorsed the idea and said at the time that he would send Congress draft legislation. Such changes are necessary because new technology is "encouraging large-scale criminal enterprises to get involved in intellectual-property theft," Gonzales said, adding that proceeds from the illicit businesses are used, "quite frankly, to fund terrorism activities."

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.

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.

A DMCA dispute
But one of the more controversial sections may be the changes to the DMCA. Under current law, Section 1201 of the law generally prohibits distributing or trafficking in any software or hardware that can be used to bypass copy-protection devices. (That section already has been used against a Princeton computer science professor, Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov and a toner cartridge remanufacturer.)

Smith's measure would expand those civil and criminal restrictions. Instead of merely targeting distribution, the new language says nobody may "make, import, export, obtain control of, or possess" such anticircumvention tools if they may be redistributed to someone else.

"It's one degree more likely 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.

Even the current wording of the DMCA has alarmed security researchers. Ed Felten, the Princeton professor, told the Copyright Office last month that he and a colleague were the first to uncover the so-called "rootkit" on some Sony BMG Music Entertainment CDs--but delayed publishing their findings for fear of being sued under the DMCA. A report prepared by critics of the DMCA says it quashes free speech and chokes innovation.

The SIIA's Kupferschmid, though, downplayed concerns about the expansion of the DMCA. "We really see this provision as far as any changes to the DMCA go as merely a housekeeping provision, not really a substantive change whatsoever," he said. "They're really to just make the definition of trafficking consistent throughout the DMCA and other provisions within copyright law uniform."

The SIIA's board of directors includes Symantec, Sun Microsystems, Oracle, Intuit and Red Hat.

Jessica Litman, who teaches copyright law at Wayne State University, views the DMCA expansion as more than just a minor change. "If Sony had decided to stand on its rights and either McAfee or Norton Antivirus had tried to remove the rootkit from my hard drive, we'd all be violating this expanded definition," Litman said.

The proposed law scheduled to be introduced by Rep. Smith also does the following:

• Permits wiretaps in investigations of copyright crimes, trade secret theft and economic espionage. It would establish a new copyright unit inside the FBI and budgets $20 million on topics including creating "advanced tools of forensic science to investigate" copyright crimes.

• Amends existing law to permit criminal enforcement of copyright violations even if the work was not registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.

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

• Creates civil asset forfeiture penalties for anything used in copyright piracy. Computers or other equipment seized must be "destroyed" or otherwise disposed of, for instance at a government auction. Criminal asset forfeiture will be done following the rules established by federal drug laws.

• Says copyright holders can impound "records documenting the manufacture, sale or receipt of items involved in" infringements.

Jason Schultz, a staff attorney at the digital-rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says the recording industry would be delighted to have the right to impound records. In a piracy lawsuit, "they want server logs," Schultz said. "They want to know every single person who's ever downloaded (certain files)--their IP addresses, everything."

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I saw this on Groklaw. It's insane. Even trying to commit copyright infringement can give 10 years in prison?

And I may not make, obtain control of, or possess a tool for bypassing copy protection? Excuse me? Then I demand that you bypass illegal copy protection for me. Because I demand the right to copy my own possessions for my own use.

And, of course, the conservative media will easily be able to spin it up, because Gonzales said that all-important scare word...

Such changes are necessary because new technology is "encouraging large-scale criminal enterprises to get involved in intellectual-property theft," Gonzales said, adding that proceeds from the illicit businesses are used, "quite frankly, to fund terrorism activities."

...terrorism.


With this, the US just took one more step in the direction of becoming a backwards nation wrt technology. Expelling hackers is not a good idea in the long term.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I saw this on Groklaw. It's insane. Even trying to commit copyright infringement can give 10 years in prison?

Ten years is insane, but merely attempting to commit a crime is a criminal conspiracy. Ten years for copyright infringement, ten months in a country club for embezzling millions from stockholders. It stinks.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

That, of course, is the other side of this. The conservative media has a brilliant piece of spin going: We must give rich people money, or they'll leave, but we mustn't give the poor people money, or they'll waste it.

So when rich company leaders rip off millions of commoners for millions of dollars, they're just going along with the good old conservative tradition of channeling money to the already wealthy. Let's not punish them, they might flee the country.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Do rich people honestly need the little extra money generated by the sales of their movies, games, etc?

Next thing you know, the downloading of scenarios, mods, maps, units, unit creating software (even demos), sounds, etc will be illegal.

 

[Mirc]

^

 

[funxus]

It'd scare me if I was american.

This is one of few morals I bend on, because I have a huge personal gain with basically no risk of repercussions, which unfortunately outweighs my conscience of hurting a lot of people I don't know. With this bill though, I'd definitely stop stealing media, and if it works, I guess it's good... Still, the punishments are way out of proportion...

EDIT: Thinking about it again, obviously the old system of paying a lot of money for single movies and single music doesn't seem to work, they should invent a new system that fits better with the users... I'm sure that's easier and more just than this bill.

 

[Gelion]

Is it US only or worldwide?

 

[IglooDame]

Do rich people honestly need the little extra money generated by the sales of their movies, games, etc?

Next thing you know, the downloading of scenarios and mods will be illegal.

I don't care if someone is rich or poor, they are legally entitled to the profits of their endeavors.

However, someone that walks by and swipes a laptop off my desk while I'm not looking would never ever face the sorts of penalties they're bandying about in this bill.

 

[IglooDame]

Is it US only or worldwide?

The DMCA only applies to the US, as would this bill should it pass.

 

[downtown]

Do rich people honestly need the little extra money generated by the sales of their movies, games, etc?

Next thing you know, the downloading of scenarios, mods, maps, units, unit creating software (even demos), sounds, etc will be illegal.

not just rich musicans get their stuff pirated you know

 

[Red Stranger]

A crime is a crime and people who commit them should be punished. I don't care if you get 10 days, 10 months, 10 years or lifetime, because I don't do it. The easiest way not to be put in jail for 10 years is not to commit the crime.

 

[IglooDame]

A crime is a crime and people who commit them should be punished. I don't care if you get 10 days, 10 months, 10 years or lifetime, because I don't do it. The easiest way not to be put in jail for 10 years is not to commit the crime.

And what crimes have you committed today, hmmm?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Summary of problem: Red Stranger is Lawful Neutral, IglooDude is Neutral Good. RS is supporting the Lawful Evil legislators and ID is supporting the Chaotic Good rebels against the law.

 

[Mirc]

They couldn't implement it worldwide.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't care if someone is rich or poor, they are legally entitled to the profits of their endeavors.

For me, imho, they're morally entitled. I live in Canada (where we get away with this crap), but I don't agree with copyright infringement. If you don't want Brad Pitt making millions, don't see his movies. Want to see his movies? Pay for 'em, and let the man get his due.

It's the libertarian in me.

 

[Kozmos]

The DMCA only applies to the US, as would this bill should it pass.

Then I laugh at the greedy american capitalist.

 

[EdwardTking]

Is it US only or worldwide?

If the US corporation get their way in the USA,
they will lobby (bribe) the EU legislators and then
seek to impose it on the world by WTO/bombers.

They have already done this with third party IPR rights.


I don't pirate movies or musuic tracks; but in many
instances copyright ownership is disputed and unclear,
and I object to the concept that I should go to jail for
10 years merely if I try to right click and save, an extract,
a fragment, an image, a quotation or a short sample clip.

Consider a site lets you copy a sample track for 7 days only.

You assume it will have an auto-delete or refuse to play
after that, but the auto-delete/inhibitor fails because of
software incompatability - and you are in jail - all
because of a software bug.

 

[kingjoshi]

It's the libertarian in me.

The libertarian in you should say the government should have minimal power and influence on this. Not that's it's okay to grant copyrights with the length of 70 years after the death of the creator. Intellectual property is a government creation! That's fascism*, not libertarianism.

NOTE: fascism being the merging of corporations and government.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

The libertarian in you should say the government should have minimal power and influence on this. Not that's it's okay to grant copyrights with the length of 70 years after the death of the creator. Intellectual property is a government creation! That's fascism*, not libertarianism.

NOTE: fascism being the merging of corporations and government.

Agreed, let the market handle it.