Dept. of Justice ready to prosecute file-swappers

[achtungbaby]

American federal authorities are turning their attention from terrorists to users of peer-to-peer networks, who could be jailed for up to five years

The US Department of Justice is prepared to begin prosecuting peer-to-peer pirates, a top government official said on Tuesday.

John Malcolm, a deputy assistant attorney general, said Americans should realise that swapping illicit copies of music and movies is a criminal offense that can result in lengthy prison terms.

"A lot of people think these activities are legal, and they think they ought to be legal," Malcolm told an audience at the Progress and Freedom Foundation's annual technology and politics summit.

Malcolm said the Internet has become "the world's largest copy machine" and that criminal prosecutions of copyright offenders are now necessary to preserve the viability of America's content industries. "There does have to be some kind of a public message that stealing is stealing is stealing," said Malcolm, who oversees the arm of the Justice Department that prosecutes copyright and computer crime cases.

In an interview, Malcolm would not say when prosecutions would begin. The response to the 11 September terrorist attacks temporarily diverted the department's resources and prevented its attorneys from focusing on this earlier, he said.

A few weeks ago, some of the most senior members of Congress pressured the Justice Department to invoke a little-known law, the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act, against peer-to-peer users who swap files without permission.

Under the NET Act, signed by President Clinton in 1997, it is a federal crime to share copies of copyrighted products such as software, movies or music with anyone, even friends or family members, if the value of the work exceeds $1,000 (about £640). Violations are punishable by one year in prison, or if the value tops $2,500, "not more than five years" in prison.

Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), said his industry would "welcome" prosecutions that send a message to song-swappers.

"Some prosecutions that make that clear could be very helpful... I think they would think twice if they thought there was a risk of criminal prosecution," said Sherman, who was on the same conference panel.

Christopher Cookson, executive vice president of Warner Bros. and another panelist, said there was "a need for governments to step in and maintain order in society".

Swapping files in violation of the law has always been a civil offense, and the RIAA and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) have the option of suing individual infringers and seeking damages.

But, Malcolm said, criminal prosecutions can be much more effective in intimidating file-swappers who have little assets at risk in a civil suit. "Civil remedies are not adequate... Law enforcement in that regard does have several advantages," Malcolm said. "We have the advantage, when appropriate, of opening up and conducting multi-jurisdictional and international investigations.

"Most parents would be horrified if they walked into a child's room and found 100 stolen CDs... However, these same parents think nothing of having their children spend time online downloading hundreds of songs without paying a dime."

Gary Shapiro, president of the Consumer Electronics Association, said he was sceptical about the view that peer-to-peer piracy should be a criminal offense. "If we have 70 million people in the United States who are breaking the law, we have a big issue."

The DOJ already has used the NET Act to imprison noncommercial software pirates, which software lobbyists hailed as "an important component of the overall effort to prevent software theft".

During his confirmation hearing in June 2001, attorney general John Ashcroft told Congress that "given the fact that much of America's strength in the world economy is a result of our being the developer and promoter of most of the valuable software, we cannot allow the assets that are held electronically to be pirated or infringed. And so we will make a priority of cybercrime issues".

The letter from Congress complains of "a staggering increase in the amount of intellectual property pirated over the Internet through peer-to-peer systems". Signed by 19 members of Congress, including Senator Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, Representative James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, the letter urged Ashcroft "to prosecute individuals who intentionally allow mass copying from their computer over peer-to-peer networks".

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Sep 1 2002, 11:10 PM
"Most parents would be horrified if they walked into a child's room and found 100 stolen CDs... However, these same parents think nothing of having their children spend time online downloading hundreds of songs without paying a dime."

kind of an incorrect analogy... but oh well.

man... NET Act, RAVE Act... i think we're spending too much money on having politicians come up with catchy acronymical legislation names.

[kimpossible]

Don't worry AB. We'll use our own personal email to exchange files.

[achtungbaby]

But what do we do for those huge files??

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Sep 2 2002, 12:08 AM
But what do we do for those huge files??
file transfer through any number of instant messengers. i know none of my email accounts are big enough for an MP3.

[wylin]

newgroups work for me. its great that programs such as winace and winrar exist to help breakdown and recompose large files!



<!--EDIT|wylin|Sep 2 2002, 05:41 PM-->

[angel nympho]

sooo lame. what a lot of politicians don't realize is that the sharing of mp3's is actually a valuable tool for musicians. who wants to buy a cd of a group they've never heard before? it's so much easier to just download some of their work to decide if you like their band enough to buy their cd's... when groups dont have the funds to get records out and promoted by big labels or dont get airtime on mtv or the radio... they publicize through the internet to create their own fan-base. shit, if they take that away, it could do a lot of unnecessary damage. *sigh*

they should realize that when technology advances, rules begin to change.

and regarding software piracy.... shit, who the fuck cares. as long as software companies make grips of money of businesses who buy like, sOOOOOO many copies of their software... they don't need MY money. i guess with games, its a bit different. with games, they count on consumers, not businesses. but yeah. either way.

[EDIT] and how do they think they're gonna regulate this? it's gonna be like the "do not remove under penalty of law" tag on mattresses.



<!--EDIT|angel nympho|Sep 3 2002, 12:57 AM-->

[wylin]

they cant actually chat room and IRC transfers are hard to catch unless u send people in as dummy file trading agents trying to entrap users.

news groups are almost impossible to block same w/ private FTPs

basically we return to the pre-napster era of down low trading

[FClubPrez]

"and regarding software piracy.... shit, who the fuck cares. as long as software companies make grips of money of businesses who buy like, sOOOOOO many copies of their software... they don't need MY money."

Actually, many software companies depend on the private consumer sector for their business. If you've ever heard of open-source companies and any of the such (just one example), they rely on the individual to fund their company.
We need to get one fact straight. Stealing is stealing. It doesn't matter if you're going to download a crack through the internet, or download a song through the internet. It is obtained illegally; it is against the law. Say whatever you want to say about it, the fact remains that you have broken the law. It makes no difference if I were able to find a hole in the security of an online company and start ordering things online and have them shipped to me for free. The reasoning that a songs and software are not concrete, meaning that they cannot be tangible with touch, does in no way let people access it.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by FClubPrez@Sep 3 2002, 08:52 PM
"and regarding software piracy.... shit, who the fuck cares. as long as software companies make grips of money of businesses who buy like, sOOOOOO many copies of their software... they don't need MY money."

Actually, many software companies depend on the private consumer sector for their business. If you've ever heard of open-source companies and any of the such (just one example), they rely on the individual to fund their company.
We need to get one fact straight. Stealing is stealing. It doesn't matter if you're going to download a crack through the internet, or download a song through the internet. It is obtained illegally; it is against the law. Say whatever you want to say about it, the fact remains that you have broken the law. It makes no difference if I were able to find a hole in the security of an online company and start ordering things online and have them shipped to me for free. The reasoning that a songs and software are not concrete, meaning that they cannot be tangible with touch, does in no way let people access it.
i think the whole point is that maybe it's time we rethink intellectual property laws.

[wylin]

free data transfer for all. the Freedom of downloading ACT!

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Sep 4 2002, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by FClubPrez@Sep 3 2002, 08:52 PM
"and regarding software piracy.... shit, who the fuck cares. as long as software companies make grips of money of businesses who buy like, sOOOOOO many copies of their software... they don't need MY money."

Actually, many software companies depend on the private consumer sector for their business. If you've ever heard of open-source companies and any of the such (just one example), they rely on the individual to fund their company.
We need to get one fact straight. Stealing is stealing. It doesn't matter if you're going to download a crack through the internet, or download a song through the internet. It is obtained illegally; it is against the law. Say whatever you want to say about it, the fact remains that you have broken the law. It makes no difference if I were able to find a hole in the security of an online company and start ordering things online and have them shipped to me for free. The reasoning that a songs and software are not concrete, meaning that they cannot be tangible with touch, does in no way let people access it.
i think the whole point is that maybe it's time we rethink intellectual property laws.
an mp3 or a pirated software thing isn't exactly intellectual property. it's all already out there for public consumption. it's not like i stole somebody's articles off the internet and passed them off as my own. programs and mp3's i know are not my own work. I know that stealing software from the internet is illegal. But downloading mp3's hardly seems illegal to me.
and it's true that yes, a law is a law... but what if the law is unfair and stupid? its up to the public to show the government how lame they're being.
EDIT: So yeah, I hardly think downloading Photoshop off the 'net is causing a dent in the money Adobe is making, simply for the fact that most of their business comes from business and schools who have to buy so much from them, and really have to be careful about pirating this stuff. I know a lot of companies need the general population to buy their stuff, but... a lot of people still opt to purchace rather than pirate. I'm just not one of them.



<!--EDIT|angel nympho|Sep 4 2002, 05:20 PM-->

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Sep 4 2002, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Sep 4 2002, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by FClubPrez@Sep 3 2002, 08:52 PM
"and regarding software piracy.... shit, who the fuck cares. as long as software companies make grips of money of businesses who buy like, sOOOOOO many copies of their software... they don't need MY money."

Actually, many software companies depend on the private consumer sector for their business. If you've ever heard of open-source companies and any of the such (just one example), they rely on the individual to fund their company.
We need to get one fact straight. Stealing is stealing. It doesn't matter if you're going to download a crack through the internet, or download a song through the internet. It is obtained illegally; it is against the law. Say whatever you want to say about it, the fact remains that you have broken the law. It makes no difference if I were able to find a hole in the security of an online company and start ordering things online and have them shipped to me for free. The reasoning that a songs and software are not concrete, meaning that they cannot be tangible with touch, does in no way let people access it.
i think the whole point is that maybe it's time we rethink intellectual property laws.
an mp3 or a pirated software thing isn't exactly intellectual property. it's all already out there for public consumption. it's not like i stole somebody's articles off the internet and passed them off as my own. programs and mp3's i know are not my own work. I know that stealing software from the internet is illegal. But downloading mp3's hardly seems illegal to me.
and it's true that yes, a law is a law... but what if the law is unfair and stupid? its up to the public to show the government how lame they're being.
EDIT: So yeah, I hardly think downloading Photoshop off the 'net is causing a dent in the money Adobe is making, simply for the fact that most of their business comes from business and schools who have to buy so much from them, and really have to be careful about pirating this stuff. I know a lot of companies need the general population to buy their stuff, but... a lot of people still opt to purchace rather than pirate. I'm just not one of them.
well actually copyrighted songs and software are intellectural property. it's "out there for public consumption" because somebody has illegally made a copy of it and then passed it around. technically speaking, you are using someone's intellectual property without permission if you're listening to an MP3 or using pirated software. and that is illegal.

don't get me wrong though, personally i'm all for free file exchange. however, it does have to do with breaking intellectual property laws.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Sep 4 2002, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Sep 4 2002, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Sep 4 2002, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by FClubPrez@Sep 3 2002, 08:52 PM
"and regarding software piracy.... shit, who the fuck cares. as long as software companies make grips of money of businesses who buy like, sOOOOOO many copies of their software... they don't need MY money."

Actually, many software companies depend on the private consumer sector for their business. If you've ever heard of open-source companies and any of the such (just one example), they rely on the individual to fund their company.
We need to get one fact straight. Stealing is stealing. It doesn't matter if you're going to download a crack through the internet, or download a song through the internet. It is obtained illegally; it is against the law. Say whatever you want to say about it, the fact remains that you have broken the law. It makes no difference if I were able to find a hole in the security of an online company and start ordering things online and have them shipped to me for free. The reasoning that a songs and software are not concrete, meaning that they cannot be tangible with touch, does in no way let people access it.
i think the whole point is that maybe it's time we rethink intellectual property laws.
an mp3 or a pirated software thing isn't exactly intellectual property. it's all already out there for public consumption. it's not like i stole somebody's articles off the internet and passed them off as my own. programs and mp3's i know are not my own work. I know that stealing software from the internet is illegal. But downloading mp3's hardly seems illegal to me.
and it's true that yes, a law is a law... but what if the law is unfair and stupid? its up to the public to show the government how lame they're being.
EDIT: So yeah, I hardly think downloading Photoshop off the 'net is causing a dent in the money Adobe is making, simply for the fact that most of their business comes from business and schools who have to buy so much from them, and really have to be careful about pirating this stuff. I know a lot of companies need the general population to buy their stuff, but... a lot of people still opt to purchace rather than pirate. I'm just not one of them.
well actually copyrighted songs and software are intellectural property. it's "out there for public consumption" because somebody has illegally made a copy of it and then passed it around. technically speaking, you are using someone's intellectual property without permission if you're listening to an MP3 or using pirated software. and that is illegal.

don't get me wrong though, personally i'm all for free file exchange. however, it does have to do with breaking intellectual property laws.
The way I see it, it's out there for public consumption because they chose to release it to the public. I mean, why is it illegal for somebody to convert their CD into MP3's to put on their MP3 player? Putting it up on the internet is like letting somebody borrow your CD.

Either way, it's all in good fun. Who wants to pay for crap when you can get it for free? Even if I COULDN't get it for free, I probably still wouldn't buy it... so it's not like companies losing anything from me.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by FClubPrez@Sep 3 2002, 05:52 PM
It is obtained illegally; it is against the law. Say whatever you want to say about it, the fact remains that you have broken the law.
Not to demean what you're saying...but so what? A lot of laws suck.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Sep 4 2002, 04:33 PM
Either way, it's all in good fun.
It's a personal thang. Most of the artists I like, I choose to buy their cd's to support them, particularly the smaller ones who are getting jacked from their companies anyway. Same goes for the music DJs come out with.

[FClubPrez]

"The way I see it, it's out there for public consumption because they chose to release it to the public. I mean, why is it illegal for somebody to convert their CD into MP3's to put on their MP3 player? Putting it up on the internet is like letting somebody borrow your CD."

That is a poor argument at best. Software companies release their stuff to the public. Car companies release their stuff to the public. Is it released so it can be SOLD, not STOLEN. Putting something up on the internet is NOT LIKE letting someone borrow your cd. It is like someone copying your cd, except now, it is mass distributed and available to anyone.

"Either way, it's all in good fun. Who wants to pay for crap when you can get it for free? Even if I COULDN't get it for free, I probably still wouldn't buy it... so it's not like companies losing anything from me. "

Because it is ethical to do so. I can steal a car and get to drive it for free. But is it ethical? Heck I could 5 finger discount and not get caught, but hey it's free right? The argument that company is not losing anything from you is also a poor argument. If everyone started thinking that way, there would be no money coming in.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Sep 4 2002, 07:33 PM
The way I see it, it's out there for public consumption because they chose to release it to the public. I mean, why is it illegal for somebody to convert their CD into MP3's to put on their MP3 player? Putting it up on the internet is like letting somebody borrow your CD.
actually i don't believe it's illegal to convert them to MP3s if you'll just be listening to the songs yourself. i don't know for sure though. maybe someone know more about this?

putting it up on the internet, however, is not like letting somebody borrow your CD, because the people who are downloading those MP3s are making copies of the songs. those copies of the songs are obtained without permission from the record companies because they were not bought.

there is no way to justify the legality of downloading MP3s. plainly said, it is illegal. however, you can advocate that these laws suck and need to be adjusted.

[tapestrybabe]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Sep 4 2002, 11:51 PM
putting it up on the internet, however, is not like letting somebody borrow your CD, because the people who are downloading those MP3s are making copies of the songs. &nbsp;those copies of the songs are obtained without permission from the record companies because they were not bought.


but even before mp3's... ppl have been copying music of songs. You buy a tape, record, cd's, and you can record them.. to give to another... mp3's is just the same thing.. but on a larger scale...



<!--EDIT|tapestrybabe|Sep 4 2002, 11:59 PM-->

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by tapestrybabe@Sep 4 2002, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Sep 4 2002, 11:51 PM
putting it up on the internet, however, is not like letting somebody borrow your CD, because the people who are downloading those MP3s are making copies of the songs. those copies of the songs are obtained without permission from the record companies because they were not bought.


but even before mp3's... ppl have been copying music of songs. You buy a tape, record, cd's, and you can record them.. to give to another... mp3's is just the same thing.. but on a larger scale...
yeah exactly. people have been copying cassettes since they became popularized. nobody ever made a fuss about it. and people also used to record songs off the radio. that's why i think the argument that MP3s are cutting into sales is very questionable. in my opinion, other factors are probably to be blamed for any decline in sales.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by FClubPrez@Sep 5 2002, 02:46 AM
"The way I see it, it's out there for public consumption because they chose to release it to the public. I mean, why is it illegal for somebody to convert their CD into MP3's to put on their MP3 player? Putting it up on the internet is like letting somebody borrow your CD."

That is a poor argument at best. Software companies release their stuff to the public. Car companies release their stuff to the public. Is it released so it can be SOLD, not STOLEN. Putting something up on the internet is NOT LIKE letting someone borrow your cd. It is like someone copying your cd, except now, it is mass distributed and available to anyone.

"Either way, it's all in good fun. Who wants to pay for crap when you can get it for free? Even if I COULDN't get it for free, I probably still wouldn't buy it... so it's not like companies losing anything from me. "

Because it is ethical to do so. I can steal a car and get to drive it for free. But is it ethical? Heck I could 5 finger discount and not get caught, but hey it's free right? The argument that company is not losing anything from you is also a poor argument. If everyone started thinking that way, there would be no money coming in.
Is making a copy of a cassette stealing? I was saying that it's not illegal to have and listen to MP3's. You mentioned earlier that listening to MP3's is illegal. Why is it illegal to do this, when I made these MP3's off my own CD for use on an MP3 player? Do I have to purchase MP3s now as well? Putting them up on the internet shouldn't be illegal. You're not making any money off this. It's like... having a video of a movie and showing it to your friends. They use the video, too, but it's not like you're running a movie theater. It's legal to let somebody borrow your CD, but while they have it, what the hell do you care if they copy it? I mean, it's not YOUR responsibility to make sure they don't copy it... you're not DISTRIBUTING. That's my point. I don't see it as morally wrong unless you're profiting from somebody else's "intellectual property."

My argument for why they aren't losing any money off me is not a poor argument because it's true. If I was unable to download MP3's of lesser known bands, then I wouldn't really care. They'd just stay lesser known bands to me. I wouldn't bother going out to buy their CD.

Often times, after I download music from a group and I discover that I really like them a lot, I go out and buy their CD to show them support. *Shrug*

[wylin]

this is because the RIAA and MPAA want to band the fair-use ability to Timeshift the media, for example VCR can time shift ur favorite show by recording it to a different magenetic tape format instead of the electronic broadcast format. Same can be Said CD to cassete, Radio to Tape, CD to Mp3.

they rather have you have a Liscense to view or play back each and every type of entertainment then have Digital Rights Management to have its basically become a pay per play/ pay per view system so they can charge u for every second of sound or video u percieve.

stand up fight for ur rights join petitions to stop this and EFF.org and boycott CD and DVD sales. =P

[AliBabaIncorporated]

<libertarian nut>
there are two reasons why you'd pay money for something rather than grabbing it up for free. the price of most goods is due to a combination of these factors.

1) it is naturally scarce cuz it is made out of physical materials and labor inputs.

2) it is artificially scarce because the manufacturers convince the state to use its monopoly on violence to prevent other people from manufacturing it.

a SONG itself is naturally scarce. but the means by which it is delivered (MP3, CD) is not a scarce resource. CDs cost a few pennies to press. MP3s cost nothing except the time you spent to search for it and the electricity used to download it. a basic scarcity test fails: would "stealing" it prevent someone else from using it? if i download an MP3 from the internet and hold it in my "possession", does this deprive one other guy out there of the ability to listen to the song on CD? if I download 7,000,000,000 copies of the MP3, is everyone else in the world deprived of the ability to listen to the song?

separate production from delivery. right now there is no other system to reimburse artists for their work besides buying an overpriced CD with many bad songs on it, or attending a concert which is out of reach of many students. however, if the intellectual property monopolies were deprived of their power by legislating "copyright" and "patent" out of existence, you can bet some bright enterpreneur would figure out some way of being the conduit between masses of consumers who attach some value (though certainly not $17 for 10 songs) to the work of artists, and artists who want to create that work. mostly cuz if you're running that conduit you get to skim as much off the top as the market will bear, which would be a lot if you don't have many competitors.

would removing all IP laws decrease the production of music, movies, etc.? yes. but maybe that's a hint from the invisible hand that Hollywood is grossly overproducing those things, and we're spending money on them which would give us more benefit and enjoyment if spent on, say, other forms of entertainment such as live performances, or maybe on clothes, or travel, etc.

finally, historically everything we remember today as culture was produced by what we'd consider today as non-profits and private charitable funding. the idea of a profit-making media company is a bit strange from this perspective.
</libertarian nut>

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Sep 5 2002, 02:34 PM
<libertarian nut>
there are two reasons why you'd pay money for something rather than grabbing it up for free. the price of most goods is due to a combination of these factors.

1) it is naturally scarce cuz it is made out of physical materials and labor inputs.

2) it is artificially scarce because the manufacturers convince the state to use its monopoly on violence to prevent other people from manufacturing it.

a SONG itself is naturally scarce. but the means by which it is delivered (MP3, CD) is not a scarce resource. CDs cost a few pennies to press. MP3s cost nothing except the time you spent to search for it and the electricity used to download it. a basic scarcity test fails: would "stealing" it prevent someone else from using it? if i download an MP3 from the internet and hold it in my "possession", does this deprive one other guy out there of the ability to listen to the song on CD? if I download 7,000,000,000 copies of the MP3, is everyone else in the world deprived of the ability to listen to the song?

separate production from delivery. right now there is no other system to reimburse artists for their work besides buying an overpriced CD with many bad songs on it, or attending a concert which is out of reach of many students. however, if the intellectual property monopolies were deprived of their power by legislating "copyright" and "patent" out of existence, you can bet some bright enterpreneur would figure out some way of being the conduit between masses of consumers who attach some value (though certainly not $17 for 10 songs) to the work of artists, and artists who want to create that work. mostly cuz if you're running that conduit you get to skim as much off the top as the market will bear, which would be a lot if you don't have many competitors.

would removing all IP laws decrease the production of music, movies, etc.? yes. but maybe that's a hint from the invisible hand that Hollywood is grossly overproducing those things, and we're spending money on them which would give us more benefit and enjoyment if spent on, say, other forms of entertainment such as live performances, or maybe on clothes, or travel, etc.

finally, historically everything we remember today as culture was produced by what we'd consider today as non-profits and private charitable funding. the idea of a profit-making media company is a bit strange from this perspective.
</libertarian nut>
good analysis. yeah i've always thought the "stealing" analogy sounds very propaganda-ish.

so it seems like you think there should be curbs to making money from intellectual property? my main concern with intellectual property is actually with how drug-companies use it.