[U.S.] Major copyright bill boosts penalties, creates new agency

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...ourtRuling.jpg

"In the aftermath of the $222,000 jury verdict that the Recording Industry Association of America recently won against a Minnesota woman who shared 24 songs on Kazaa, the U.S. Congress is preparing to amend copyright law."

"Politicians want to increase penalties for copyright infringement.

It's no joke. Top Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday introduced a sweeping 69-page bill that ratchets up civil penalties for copyright infringement, boosts criminal enforcement, and even creates a new federal agency charged with bringing about a national and international copyright crackdown.

"By providing additional resources for enforcement of intellectual property, we ensure that innovation and creativity will continue to prosper in our society," Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich) said in a statement.

The legislation, called the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act, or PRO IP Act, is throughly bipartisan. The top Republican, Lamar Smith of Texas, on the Judiciary committee is a sponsor. So is Howard Berman (D-Calif.), the chair of the subcommittee that writes copyright law, and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)."

:source: Source: Full Article @ C|NET News.com

gotta wonder about the real reasoning behind this ?? - a genuine concern about the intellectual copyright of artists or a greater concern about the money that is being lost to american companies - mmm i wonder ??

where they idiots all along or is it yust me?...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ciderman

gotta wonder about the real reasoning behind this ?? - a genuine concern about the intellectual copyright of artists or a greater concern about the money that is being lost to american companies - mmm i wonder ??

---

I find it funny that people get upset over not being a steal with no penalty.

Who's stealing? What's being stolen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hairbautt

Who's stealing? What's being stolen?

---

I know I am, along with the 15k or so others at Waffles. What I find funny is the juxtaposition of creativity, innovation and profit, as if all invention will shrivel up and die when the incentive of cash declines.

Also, I love how their prosecutorial spectrum is housewife on Kazaa / Oink founder. Thats like saying I only hunt mackerel and blue whale.

I think people who steal should be punished, but 222,000 for 24 songs is absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bornwithnoname

I think people who steal should be punished, but 222,000 for 24 songs is absurd.

---

I agree. I don't see how it is possible to give a fine out that is equal to or greater than a Class A felony which is murder. For something that has a value of no more than $24 I don't see how that compares. What this should of been was Sixth Degree Larceny which is a Class C misdemeanor which by law should be a fine not to exceed $500. But who am I kidding laws don't apply to music...somehow. :huh:

Get ready for torrent encryption!

They're suing her for copyright infringement, not just theft. And it only came to that sum because she was stupid enough to fight them in court, so they were awarded full damage compensation. Still, if they really wanted to make an example they'd...uh...give everyone free CDs and cake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hairbautt

Who's stealing? What's being stolen?"

---

Incidentally, the rights of distribution of the music otherwise distributed by the RIAA is being stolen. Assuming the right to distribute that music freely deprives the R*AA money, the extent of which is unforeseeable without complete surveillance. That is also why these fines are so high. They are giving the R*AA the benefit of the doubt. If those 24 songs were likely to have been copied by ~915.67 (22,000/24 - 1; or more clearly (22,000-24)/24) people, and since that woman is held responsible as the distributor, it is perfectly reasonable to sue that woman for 22,000 dollars.

I still don't think they any right to sue somebody that much money. How can they actually prove that because this lady was sharing 24 songs that the label lost somewhere in the means of $222,000. How do they actually prove losses in court?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaxel21

I still don't think they any right to sue somebody that much money. How can they actually prove that because this lady was sharing 24 songs that the label lost somewhere in the means of $222,000. How do they actually prove losses in court?

---

With the premise that those who pirate a song would otherwise buy it. Although this is only true circumstantially, I guess the court of law must assume it...
Do not forget that as a distributor, one is responsible for that which one distributes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaxel21

I still don't think they any right to sue somebody that much money. How can they actually prove that because this lady was sharing 24 songs that the label lost somewhere in the means of $222,000. How do they actually prove losses in court?

---

The verdict had little to do with her. She's a sacrificial lamb -- that amount is a warning to us. It's supposed to be so outrageous that we stop pirating out of fear. It has failed. :happy:

You know what the irony is? I've bought more CDs since I started pirating music than ever before. People don't want to go out and buy a CD not knowing if they're going to like the songs on it. This just proves they'll never understand pirating from the consumers point of view. If I really enjoy something, I'll go out and buy the product. If its sh*t and I'm never gonna use it, I feel I should have the right to not spend money on it. So they can sue these fools out of their minds but they're only making enemies and creating more pirates out of spite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tusks

You know what the irony is? I've bought more CDs since I started pirating music than ever before. People don't want to go out and buy a CD not knowing if they're going to like the songs on it. This just proves they'll never understand pirating from a consumers point of view.

---

I couldn't agree more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tusks

If I really enjoy something, I'll go out and buy the product.

---

I call BS on this. Why would you buy the CD when you can download it in FLAC and create and Exact Copy using EAC?

You would go to the artists' concerts and buy their merchandise, however, as a way to support them. But buying their CDs after having downloaded them is completely impractical.

I won't assume your particular reasons, but it's logically unsound to assume that the general population of music pirates engage in the same economic practice; and then posit that as a reason why "they'll never understand pirating from the consumers point of view," which then you use to deduce that this lawsuit somehow generates spite among the entire population - thereby creating more pirates.

If anything, this lawsuit evokes fear out of the pirates and displays justice to rest of the population. Will that stop piracy, lol? Not when the risk is low...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ænima

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tusks

If I really enjoy something, I'll go out and buy the product.

---

I call BS on this. Why would you buy the CD when you can download it in FLAC and create and Exact Copy using EAC?

You would go to the artists' concerts and buy their merchandise, however, as a way to support them. But buying their CDs after having downloaded them is completely impractical.

I won't assume your particular reasons, but it's logically unsound to assume that the general population of music pirates engage in the same economic practice; and then posit that as a reason why "they'll never understand pirating from the consumers point of view," which then you use to deduce that this lawsuit somehow generates spite among the entire population - thereby creating more pirates.

If anything, this lawsuit evokes fear out of the pirates and displays justice to rest of the population. Will that stop piracy, lol? Not when the risk is low...

---

While I think you're right about his argument not being a real justification for file-sharing, it brings up an important point: consumers want to consume. If we can do it for free, fine, but we're not against spending money on something we feel is worth it. I prioritize music more highly now than ever not because I can get it for free, but because its availability allowed me to discover more artists in more genres at a rate that would have been impossible if I were paying for it. Now I go to more concerts, buy more CDs, and faithfully support the artists I care about because their survival is important to me, and I don't think that attitude is rare.

Frankly, the RIAA isn't profiting off of the artists I listen to. They're protecting their cash cows; the cookie-cutter pop garbage that's in danger of capsizing precisely because even the people who genuinely enjoy it aren't stupid enough to buy it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orfik

While I think you're right about his argument not being a real justification for file-sharing, it brings up an important point: consumers want to consume. If we can do it for free, fine, but we're not against spending money on something we feel is worth it. I prioritize music more highly now than ever not because I can get it for free, but because its availability allowed me to discover more artists in more genres at a rate that would have been impossible if I were paying for it. Now I go to more concerts, buy more CDs, and faithfully support the artists I care about because their survival is important to me, and I don't think that attitude is rare.

Frankly, the RIAA isn't profiting off of the artists I listen to. They're protecting their cash cows; the cookie-cutter pop garbage that's in danger of capsizing precisely because even the people who genuinely enjoy it aren't stupid enough to buy it.

---

I was only arguing against the notion that piracy encourages more CD sales, which most worries the R*AA because they have the right to control and make profits from the distribution of the music, which is intellectual property, whether it be in the form of CDs or through the internet.

Your last paragraph may be true, but it incorrectly reflects the general population, whether you intended it to or not. The "pop garbage" you call those under the wing of the R*AA produces the most popular music, which produces the most CD sales and also the most snatches on a torrent tracker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orfik

While I think you're right about his argument not being a real justification for file-sharing, it brings up an important point: consumers want to consume. If we can do it for free, fine, but we're not against spending money on something we feel is worth it. I prioritize music more highly now than ever not because I can get it for free, but because its availability allowed me to discover more artists in more genres at a rate that would have been impossible if I were paying for it. Now I go to more concerts, buy more CDs, and faithfully support the artists I care about because their survival is important to me, and I don't think that attitude is rare.

Frankly, the RIAA isn't profiting off of the artists I listen to. They're protecting their cash cows; the cookie-cutter pop garbage that's in danger of capsizing precisely because even the people who genuinely enjoy it aren't stupid enough to buy it.

---

I agree with you consumers wanting to consume, but I think they are not keeping up with current demand. Yes there is a demand for cds but not like there use to be. Cds are going the way of the dinosaur like the black vinyl records. The demand is for mp3, which the record industrie is not supplying at all. Sure there is iTunes but the quality lacks. I believe they are forcing the consumer to resort to pirating to get a mp3. Why carry several cds around when you can carry an 80gig ipod with all of your music. And now that cars are starting to come with built in hard drives who wants to carry a bunch of cds that are bound to get scratched in the car. Plus the price for an mp3 on iTunes, taking in mind the quality, is outragous. :angry: It makes you wonder why they don't get with the game. All they do is go hide in a corner and let there minions do there dirty work. Someone should sue them for not getting with the times. It seems like instead of selling cds they now profit from lawsuits. Not a great way of doing business with your customers.

1. That poster that said suing people for piracy makes enemies out of the people is talking bullshit.

People pirate anyway cuz they can. Whether the RIAA sues or not, people will still pirate....cuz they can.

You may "try before you buy" but most of us don't.

I bought wayyyy more CDs before than I do now. I remember buying tons even when they had those long cardboard boxes.

Th fact is people don't buy less cuz the quality of music went down. They are ripping, downloading, burning their stuff more.

2. The Ipod market was created out of the popularity of piracy. Mp3s made piracy easier for the average joe. Now the only way to combat this leads to.....

3......,ironically, DRM free music for sale. Amazon does it and others will follow suit.

4. When people says things like "the creativity will still be there" you must remember, it is not for you to judge whether or not a person should be able to make a decent amount of change making music.

5. Also saying "that pop garbage" is underdog talk. It's the stuff at the time that sells the most at the time, basically. I remember when all rap was underground. Now there's a segment in rap called pop. Why? It sells to the masses.


If you pirate music, just say so. I do all the time but I actually do buy a super-quality album (almost every song is good). However, I buy CDs way less because I can. That coupled with CD prices being expensive many times ($18 for a CD!) or the prospect of buying a whole CD for one good song and piracy looks more attractive.

I don't make bullshit excuses to justify what I do.

On an INDIAN RESERVATION :O

according to this
http://www.sci-tech-today.com/news/W...d=020002G01ZTW

The lady lived on an indian reservation. No wonder she fought it.

Indian reservations are supposed to be sovereign nations by law, yet they get trampled by the DEA when they want to grow industrial hemp, and now sued by the RIAA which shouldn't have any power on their lands at all.

These people are definitely struggling enough as it is, without the government extracting this kind of money from them.

All Hail the Great Satan :angry:

and to those who angered that I just insulted the country without consequence
this little beauty might just do the trick in the future

H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-1955

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

1. That poster that said suing people for piracy makes enemies out of the people is talking bullshit.

People pirate anyway cuz they can. Whether the RIAA sues or not, people will still pirate....cuz they can.

You may "try before you buy" but most of us don't.

I bought wayyyy more CDs before than I do now. I remember buying tons even when they had those long cardboard boxes.

Th fact is people don't buy less cuz the quality of music went down. They are ripping, downloading, burning their stuff more.

2. The Ipod market was created out of the popularity of piracy. Mp3s made piracy easier for the average joe. Now the only way to combat this leads to.....

3......,ironically, DRM free music for sale. Amazon does it and others will follow suit.

4. When people says things like "the creativity will still be there" you must remember, it is not for you to judge whether or not a person should be able to make a decent amount of change making music.

5. Also saying "that pop garbage" is underdog talk. It's the stuff at the time that sells the most at the time, basically. I remember when all rap was underground. Now there's a segment in rap called pop. Why? It sells to the masses.


If you pirate music, just say so. I do all the time but I actually do buy a super-quality album (almost every song is good). However, I buy CDs way less because I can. That coupled with CD prices being expensive many times ($18 for a CD!) or the prospect of buying a whole CD for one good song and piracy looks more attractive.

I don't make bullshit excuses to justify what I do.

---

First off, I never made any excuses. In fact, I was the first one to admit that I outright stole music, period. And I wasn't making a "try before you buy" argument, I was saying that exposure to a wide range of music often makes music more important in your life than it would have been otherwise, making you a more active member of the musical community and more invested in its growth. And I also mentioned that that is not a valid justification for piracy.

But you reinforced my point: people pirate because they can, knowing it's illegal. People use drugs because they can, knowing it's illegal. The war on drugs has been an abysmal failure. The anti-piracy campaign has been an abysmal failure. These aren't coincidences -- it's the natural result of an organization attacking the very foundation they're built on.

I'm not interested in right or wrong (nothing could be less interesting to me), I'm just talking facts. The RIAA can't protect its self interest by holding a gun to the buyers' heads.

But if they can't sell CD's, will bands, artists, record companies still record their music, so we can download it for free ?

Or will they say, stuff it, if you want to hear us, come to our concert !

Regards

Digby

The sincere artists will do what artists have done since the beginning of civilization: make art. And for most artists, profit from record sales is inferior to concerts, so CDs aren't going anywhere for now because that's still a very effective method of advertisement. Again, I'm not saying it's OK to to take the money out of their pocket (even though I'm not going to stop), but I am saying that the idea it'll make the music stop is laughable. See? :lol:

time to head over to usenet

...and yet millions of people still download music, video & software daily around the world ;)

And as the record companies continue to win battle's while losing the war, they will get more and more desperate.
More money will go to more politician's to create more and more draconian laws. (they have willfully forgotten the lessons of prohibition)
I don't pirate music. The pre-packaged pap they put out now makes me sick. I also don't buy music anymore either. The music industry and all this bullying disgusts me, and I have turned my back on them.
You have one very angry former consumer right here, who does not like what the monied interests are doing to this country at all, changing the laws of to protect their personal revenues and empires while regular people go down for the count.

I will not be surprised at all to see a lot of these politicians testifying in court someday about who paid who and when, to enact laws like this.

The problem is the flawed model bodies like RIAA present to the politicians they are lobbying.

They claim that because thousands of copies of albums are downloaded each day, each one of those copies is a lost sale. But that's complete BS, it is doubtful whether as much as 1% of the downloaded music would be purchased, simply because those downloading usually could not afford to spend that sort of money.

At the same time, there are organised criminals making hard copy duplicates of cds and passing them off at street markets as "cut-price originals", often because of dodgy packaging. These items are being purchased and are therefore directly identifiable as lost sales, yet the RIAA does little to publicise this or even make serious efforts at prevention.

Then you get the other nonsense, messages like "music piracy funds human trafficking". That has got to be the biggest load of crap of the lot. First of all it assumes that people who are downloading music are somehow feeding money into a human trafficking scheme. Secondly, it assumes that where human trafficking is taking place it isn't profitable and needs to be propped up by sales of pirated music; if it wasn't profitable why would anyone do it?

The problem ultimately comes down to the fact that our politicians are too thick to understand reality, and/or are getting some nice little kickbacks from the recording industry, probably in the form of donations to their re-election funds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orfik

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

1. That poster that said suing people for piracy makes enemies out of the people is talking bullshit.

People pirate anyway cuz they can. Whether the RIAA sues or not, people will still pirate....cuz they can.

You may "try before you buy" but most of us don't.

I bought wayyyy more CDs before than I do now. I remember buying tons even when they had those long cardboard boxes.

Th fact is people don't buy less cuz the quality of music went down. They are ripping, downloading, burning their stuff more.

2. The Ipod market was created out of the popularity of piracy. Mp3s made piracy easier for the average joe. Now the only way to combat this leads to.....

3......,ironically, DRM free music for sale. Amazon does it and others will follow suit.

4. When people says things like "the creativity will still be there" you must remember, it is not for you to judge whether or not a person should be able to make a decent amount of change making music.

5. Also saying "that pop garbage" is underdog talk. It's the stuff at the time that sells the most at the time, basically. I remember when all rap was underground. Now there's a segment in rap called pop. Why? It sells to the masses.


If you pirate music, just say so. I do all the time but I actually do buy a super-quality album (almost every song is good). However, I buy CDs way less because I can. That coupled with CD prices being expensive many times ($18 for a CD!) or the prospect of buying a whole CD for one good song and piracy looks more attractive.

I don't make bullshit excuses to justify what I do.

---

First off, I never made any excuses. In fact, I was the first one to admit that I outright stole music, period. And I wasn't making a "try before you buy" argument, I was saying that exposure to a wide range of music often makes music more important in your life than it would have been otherwise, making you a more active member of the musical community and more invested in its growth. And I also mentioned that that is not a valid justification for piracy.

But you reinforced my point: people pirate because they can, knowing it's illegal. People use drugs because they can, knowing it's illegal. The war on drugs has been an abysmal failure. The anti-piracy campaign has been an abysmal failure. These aren't coincidences -- it's the natural result of an organization attacking the very foundation they're built on.

I'm not interested in right or wrong (nothing could be less interesting to me), I'm just talking facts. The RIAA can't protect its self interest by holding a gun to the buyers' heads.

---

Great points.