Jail for MP3 Pirates?

[Stryder]

Perhaps when the 98% stop using self serving rationalizations to do anything they darn well please, the 2% will stop feeling the need to use iron fisted draconian measures to control them.

We all have the right of opinion. And my opinion is that statement is one of the biggest loads of B.S. I have ever heard.

[Stryder]

nline,My whole point is there is a difference between a person who will walk into a retail outlet, a persons home, a bank, etc. and steal and a person who downloads music and software. I am not saying either is right. I am only saying the actions taken against each should be treated differently for two reasons. One is there is no true way to caculate what is a lost sale and what is not. How can anyone prove whether that person would have spent the money in the first place if they could not have gotten it for free. How can you call it a lost sale when there is no proof that person would have EVER bought it. And second, they did not steal something that resulted in a company having to replace the product or eat the costs associated with manufacturing. So I firmly believe there should not be any jail time involved. And only reasonable fines. Not the grossly inflated and exaggerated numbers you see being thrown around.

[Prelude76]

i think (hope) ragnar was joking about that ;)Stryder, i'm with you 100% on the opinion about loss of 'potential' sale. if anything, if we stop and think outside the box, maybe just maybe all this piracy, bootlegging, etc..., led to this huge increase in computer sales and internet's subsequent rise. ever think of it that way? and how many jobs, from web designers, to ISP people, to tech sales, to tech support, etc, were created as a result of all this piracy and so-called theft. AutoCAD's massive piracy in the windows 3.1 days is what led to its massive low-cost 3D design empire. if it wasnt for AutoCAD and the fact that every designer had a bootlegged copy of AutoCAD at home, we'd still be drawing designs on paper as no one could afford CATIA's $50,000 high-end software that used to run only on Unix. and if people never bootlegged windows 3.1 like mad back in the day, Microsoft wouldnt be where its at today. and if Napster never appeared, we'd all be still on dial-up, because after all, why does anyone need 1.5mb DSL line for surfing web pages of text? people have limited disposable income, and if they didnt get some mp3 and software for free, they wouldnt necessarily buy those things, since we all seem to be at the max of our limited disposable income. and people are not stupid, they know whats a good deal and when they're being ripped off. When Linux sells for $30, its great deal. when MS Office comes out for $329 for an UPGRADE, that's called 'being milked'. When a game is in the sell-off bin and costs $25, i grab it if i know its good. but if i see Halo retailing for $69.95, i just laugh and shake my head. especially for a game that was developed over a year ago for the Xbox, and i'm pretty sure the development team has already got a good raise for all their hard work for those sales. The PC version starting at $69.95 is another 'milking' example. it should've debuted in the sell-off bin, at $20 a pop.

[SonicDragon]

You're all right, it's almost imposible to calculate how much was lost and the potensial sale factor.I think that the music industry is loosing potensial sales, but i think some people are turning the possible sale factor around and making it an excuse, saying that it's ok to take the song because you weren't going to buy it anyway.It doesn't matter whether or not you were going to buy it or not, you still took the music/programs. I think saying otherwise is crazy. To me, that's sort of like stealing a car and telling the police that it was too expensive and that it was ok to steal because you were not going to buy it anyway. The car was still stolen. It just doesn't make sence. While the creation of new IT jobs in wonderful, what is it doing to jobs in the music industry? We don't know for sure what the jobs there would be like without file swapping, but i'm willing to bet that file swapping isn't helping. I also disagree that stealing from a store and stealing from the internet are all that different. While the one from the store did probably cost the company more loss, it's still not right. It still is unfair, even if you would never in your life buy it anyway. If you didn't buy it, then you shouldn't have it.

[Prelude76]

To me, that's sort of like stealing a car and telling the police that it was too expensive and that it was ok to steal because you were not going to buy it anyway. The car was still stolen.

I dont see how 'duplicating via your own means' a copyrighted work, is being compared to physically stealing a car. One is an act of 'copyright infrigment', other is an 'act of theft'. and even as a 'copyright infrigment', as Stryder pointed out, no financial transcation takes places, so its at the bottom end of 'copyright infrigments'. its the equivalent of copying your favorite song from the radio to a cassette (fess up, we all did it as kids). you know, technically, if you show one of your DVD to a bunch of friends, or play one of your CDs at a house party, you're also technically breaking copyright laws towards unauthorized public viewing.

[SonicDragon]

I dont see how 'duplicating via your own means' a copyrighted work, is being compared to physically stealing a car. One is an act of 'copyright infrigment', other is an 'act of theft'. and even as a 'copyright infrigment', as Stryder pointed out, no financial transcation takes places, so its at the bottom end of 'copyright infrigments'.

Ok, i know it's not the perfect example . I'm just trying to say that just because you weren't going to buy it doesn't excuse the fact that you have the music illegally.Any by "you" i don't mean you specifically, i mean everyone.

[ibe98765]

Thanks, ibe. Well, you are a bright person and I respect your opinions. More often than not, I agree with them. Not here, though. You always have a lot to contribute to the discussion. So let's just not take this in a personal direction. It strains credibility to believe that the average joe is going to get anything near what he or she wants by asking congress for redress. (snort chortle) C'mon, guy, are you actually serious? You know very well that congress almost invariably acts contrary to the interests of the 'consumer', always playing to the interests of the folks who really elected them, namely the monied interests like MPAA and RIAA. Pardon my cynicism. I just can't help being a realist here. I find it hard to see you taking the position of an idealist in an ugly row like this one. Do you really intend to help these self-righteous guys and gals as they rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic? If you should ever have a change of heart, rest assured that your brother and sister consumers will welcome you back with open arms- and a big sigh of relief.

There was no intention at all to get "personal" on this issue. I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion. I only want to help ensure that opinions are based on reason and not emotion or simply standing up for the "little guy".Here in the USA, we live in a form of democracy called a Republic. A Republic is structured such that we elect representatives to serve our interest in law making bodies, such as the Congress. Use of the word "our" here does not mean the individual, it means the majority (of those who choose to vote). Yes, I agree 100% that our elected representatives do not always vote the way one feels they should and that due to inherent moral and financial corruption, some are unduly beholden to corporate interests. That being said, we have to live within the structure of our laws or we will descend into anarchy, which IMO, is what is happening with this idea of taking something that you are not entitled to take (digital music) simply because it's easy and you can. Unlike the old 55mph speed limit, this is not an issue for civil disobedience. Speaking of cars, I have to wonder that if things like cars were as easy to take as digital music, would car dealers and manufacturers face the same issues? Sadly, I believe they would. What this speaks of is a breakdown in the moral compass of our society and is at the root of many of the problems we face in today's world. I am not defending the RIAA/MPAA. I'm merely trying to point out that it is not right to take things that do not belong to you, regardless of twisted logic or nonsensical justifications such as "I feel they are charging too much for their product", "They have enough money", "They aren't paying the artists enough so why should I pay the companies anything?", "They won't/don't publish the music I like", etc., etc....

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/mp3/This war has very much been cast as a battle between the industry on one side and the artists and their fans on the other. Artists claim that the current system whereby they receive only pennies on the dollar for CD sales is archaic and that the Internet now provides a distribution medium which allows them to distribute their songs directly to their fans, cutting out the middleman. Music fans insist that paying $17.99 for a CD which costs a small fraction of that to make is a rip-off, and they cite the low royalties to artists as another reason for their ire. In some convolution of logic akin to a shoplifter's justification of only stealing from big businesses, they seem to be saying that it's OK to take the music because the sellers are making too much money from them. The backup argument when this one fails is that they would buy MP3s, if only the record companies would make more of them available for purchase. Since they don't, the only way to get their favorite tracks on MP3 is piracy.

[ibe98765]

It can't be theft if you download the song first and than go out and buy the CD - you have now just bought it.  What does it matter where the source of the downloaded song came from?  I know many don't do this, but some do and that is not being recognized.  CD sales didn't go backwards, they actually rose when Napster first came out.  The RIAA and MPAA are the real crooks

So if I go to any store, take the product I want to try out and then "maybe" go back and buy it at some point, the initial act of taking the product wouldn't be considered stealing????? That's an interesting twist of law that I doubt any court would support...

[ibe98765]

What I wonder is - what if someone downloaded the song and listened to it and liked it and than went out to the store and bought the CD?  They can't measure the damage done or the good done.  I know before I started boycotting CDs,  I have downloaded a song from a band and liked what I  heard and went out and bought the CD.

havnblast, I tend to agree with you. I never got into MP3s but I do copy my CDs. I make three copies of each CD: one for each car and one for my office stereo. Am I a thief? I hope not. If a friend is visiting and hears songs on my stereo is this a violation? I guess they could argue that I should move the CD around so I would eventually damage it and buy a new copy. Wrong!

No, I wouldn't say you are thief. I have also done the same thing. I believe that if you have purchased a recording and have an extant copy, then making copies for personal use on other devices is not theft. Theft comes into play when you don't own the recording in some form or another and/or are distributing copies to others.

[Stonegiant]

Hmmm... This thread is spiralling out of control. Very nearly the same points being brought forth from each person with no change is real content (not that I can tell anyways). Do any of the participants actually think they will be swayed after this much debate?

[ibe98765]

ok, ENOUGH with the THEFT term.  it is not theft.  if it was, they'd be saying mp3 thieves, instead, their mp3 pirates.  taking this STRAIGHT from ibe9876's definition of theft:

  Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the        owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious;        every part of the property stolen must be removed,        however slightly, from its former position; and it must        be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of        the thief.

so if someone breaks into the artists house and steals his original music tablature, or his personally recorded demo tape, that is theft. making a DUPLICATE of something and then offering it to others, for free or for a fee, that is called COPYRIGHT INFRIGMENT. It's like someone goes and paints a duplicate of Mona Lisa. Sure, he might be in trouble if Leonardo copyrighted it (its not copyrighted, so go ahead and copy it all you want), but it is NOT the same as if you break into the Louvres in Paris and steal the original painting. So stop with these dang 'theft' comparisons as their just plain silly.

The definition I published is a classic one written sometime prior to the availability of electronic products. I believe it needs to be updated to reflect the reality of today's electronic world.In any case, you should review http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17-18red.htm, specifically:

§ 101. Definitions Add the following between "display" and "fixed": The term "financial gain" includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works. 17 U.S.C. §§ 506 & 507 § 506. Criminal offenses (a) Criminal Infringement.--Any person who infringes a copyright willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain shall be punished as provided in section 2319 of title 18. either-- 1. for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or 2. by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.

If you are have downloaded and made available a selection of songs or movies to others (say through something like KaZaA) that have a total retail value of at least $1000 AND if you gain ANYTHING in return of financial value, even if someone sends you $1 or perhaps a copy of a copyrighted piece of music or you are able to gain access to other songs because of making your collection available, then I believe you would be guilty of theft under this law and could be severely punished.But I don't think it productive or necessary to delve further into discussions of what theft is or isn't under the eyes of the law. I favor the classic definition of theft as taking something that doesn't belong to you. And for you religious folk, the 10 Commandments has a couple of rules regarding stealing, to wit:

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.' TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

[ibe98765]

To me, that's sort of like stealing a car and telling the police that it was too expensive and that it was ok to steal because you were not going to buy it anyway. The car was still stolen.

I dont see how 'duplicating via your own means' a copyrighted work, is being compared to physically stealing a car. One is an act of 'copyright infrigment', other is an 'act of theft'. and even as a 'copyright infrigment', as Stryder pointed out, no financial transcation takes places, so its at the bottom end of 'copyright infrigments'. its the equivalent of copying your favorite song from the radio to a cassette (fess up, we all did it as kids). you know, technically, if you show one of your DVD to a bunch of friends, or play one of your CDs at a house party, you're also technically breaking copyright laws towards unauthorized public viewing.

So by extension, anything in electronic form should be able to be copied by anyone and shared with anyone who wants to do so at any time? For example - Adobe Photoshop, Microsoft Office, a complete movie? None of this would be theft, right? Just mere "copyright infringement", a victimless crime? I'm sure all software makers would be happy to hear of this novel theory. Or does this umm, "justification" only apply to digital music?

[havnblast]

It can't be theft if you download the song first and than go out and buy the CD - you have now just bought it.  What does it matter where the source of the downloaded song came from?  I know many don't do this, but some do and that is not being recognized.  CD sales didn't go backwards, they actually rose when Napster first came out.  The RIAA and MPAA are the real crooks

So if I go to any store, take the product I want to try out and then "maybe" go back and buy it at some point, the initial act of taking the product wouldn't be considered stealing????? That's an interesting twist of law that I doubt any court would support...

Well now we are talking about 2 different things --- unlike the internet stores make you purchase things before taking them home and trying them out. Sure you have guarantees and stuff, but getting all your money back is impossilbe practically. Car dealers let you test drive cars before you buy it.Website that sell music usually have a 30 second clip of the song or something like that to preview the music before you buy it Business use these methods to get people to buy buy buy.So I download a song I like what I hear - off to the store to buy the CD - no theft, no harm, people got their money. I know this is not done by a large number of people, but it is by some.

[Cluttermagnet]

OK, it's not a copyright issue...it's an attribution issue...but Cluttermagnet, you're "Revenge is a dish best served cold" quote was coined by Pierre Ambroise Francois Choderios de LaClos (1741-1803). He originally said it in French in his 1782 book Les Liasons Dangereuses: "La vengeance est un plat qui se mange froid".  Just thought you'd like to know. 

Cool, Jeber-Waal, I didn't really think "Khan" wrote his own lines. Leave it to the French! BTW Montelban was looking pretty good for his role in that movie. He worked out a good bit to get back in shape. He probably could have kicked Shatner all over that movie set if he needed to. But he was pretty mellow as he was getting a lot of good ad spots for Chrysler back then. I will always remember him for his Khan role, and of course Monster Island- er, Fantasy Island ("deplane! deplane!") Now come on, fess up- did you really know that French aristocrat stuff, or did you just Google it? I am intrigued to consider the possibility that one of my more memorable utterances might end up as a snippetof dialog or a plot device in some epic 2147 AD movie re-enactment of the sizzling 2000's. Something like: "...a tear came to his eye, but he quickly wiped it away as if it were radioactive. It was radioactive."

[nlinecomputers]

I dont see how 'duplicating via your own means' a copyrighted work, is being compared to physically stealing a car. One is an act of 'copyright infrigment', other is an 'act of theft'. and even as a 'copyright infrigment', as Stryder pointed out, no financial transcation takes places, so its at the bottom end of 'copyright infrigments'. its the equivalent of copying your favorite song from the radio to a cassette

I note the phase "no financial transaction takes place". Well that's is the whole point. By stealing music off of someone else's computer you rob the copyright holder the right to make money off of the copy. That's what a copyright is all about, the RIGHT to control when and how a copy is made. The copyright holder has the right to say you only get a copy as long as you PAY him for it. You are creating a copy, without permission and depriving the copyright holder his right to earn income on it. It is not your place to judge weather he already gets enough money. All that is the weak rationaliztion the end result is no different you still deprive the copyright holder of income just as would have if you took phyisical property right out of his hands. At least the mugger has the guts to walk up and take the goods. You file swappers just hide behind legalisms and try to pretend that you've done no harm. Now to be fair I don't think that MUCH harm is done. I agree with Tim O'Reilly that P2P is mostly minor shoplifting. But I also think it is going to make a bigger dent before it gets better.P2P is NOT the same as copying music off of the radio. A radio station has to pay the CP owner a fee in order to play the music. Part of the reason that fee exists is to compensate the CP owner for a lost sale. Kaaza pays no fees to the CP owners. They should. The EFF has a great link that describes how p2p can continue AND artists can be paid. http://www.eff.org/share/compensation.php

[Prelude76]

you're right, this thread IS spiralling out of control. I dont believe the RIAA keeps radio around simply since it generates revenue thru fees. Last time i checked, majority of the radio stations are OWNED by media conglomerates, and the only thing the Radio is used for is to feed constant crap artists that the RIAA wants to support. for example, when Canadian Idol won, they sent his cheezy lame song over to every major radio stations so they can start playing it non-stop the next morning. in other words, Radio is simply RIAA's mass advertising weapon. the so-called fees were put in place to keep independent stations at bay, and ironically, those who refuse to abide by the set fees are called 'Pirate' Radio stations. and ibe9876, i dont know what P2P network you visit, but there has never been a $1 transaction to trade files on those systems, so no, P2P sharing is NOT criminal offsense since no profitering takes place, though many in congress are rushing bills to make it a criminal act. yet at the same time, the government ignores the FACT that sharman networks is making millions in spyware and adware revenue, and are planning to switch to a subscription service, and instead, they go after the people that cannot afford CDs, let alone lawyers. I for one would be HAPPY if kazaa was brought down and we can all return to the normal "trade CDs with friends" routine. :thumbsup:oh, and a note about fees: a Candian article said it the best, that since in canada, our government already has added hidden fees and taxes on sales of blank CDs and gives that money to the music industry, could it not be argued that we are already paying for the songs we download for 'free' ? (not my words, but the collumnist who wrote it in a Canadian paper, though i forget his name)

[Cluttermagnet]

Here in the USA, we live in a form of democracy called a Republic.  A Republic is structured such that we elect representatives to serve our interest in law making bodies, such as the Congress.  Use of the word "our" here does not mean the individual, it means the majority (of those who choose to vote).  Yes, I agree 100% that our elected representatives do not always vote the way one feels they should and that due to inherent moral and financial corruption, some are unduly beholden to corporate interests. That being said, we have to live within the structure of our laws or we will descend into anarchy, which IMO, is what is happening with this idea of taking something that you are not entitled to take (digital music) simply because it's easy and you can. (snip) What this speaks of is a breakdown in the moral compass of our society and is at the root of many of the problems we face in today's world. I am not defending the RIAA/MPAA.  I'm merely trying to point out that it is not right to take things that do not belong to you, regardless of twisted logic or nonsensical justifications such as "I feel they are charging too much for their product", "They have enough money", "They aren't paying the artists enough so why should I pay the companies anything?", "They won't/don't publish the music I like", etc., etc.... 

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/mp3/This war has very much been cast as a battle between the industry on one side and the artists and their fans on the other. Artists claim that the current system whereby they receive only pennies on the dollar for CD sales is archaic and that the Internet now provides a distribution medium which allows them to distribute their songs directly to their fans, cutting out the middleman. Music fans insist that paying $17.99 for a CD which costs a small fraction of that to make is a rip-off, and they cite the low royalties to artists as another reason for their ire. In some convolution of logic akin to a shoplifter's justification of only stealing from big businesses, they seem to be saying that it's OK to take the music because the sellers are making too much money from them. The backup argument when this one fails is that they would buy MP3s, if only the record companies would make more of them available for purchase. Since they don't, the only way to get their favorite tracks on MP3 is piracy.

Some well-considered counterpoints as always, ibe. As I see it, however, you are getting hung up in details and minutae, and completely failing to see the 'big picture'. You at least allude to some of everyday reality in your comments about 'pirates' justifying their copying by the fact that a lot of artists' back catalog gets hoarded by the big companies and is genuinely difficult or impossible to get hold of. You are also willing to admit that our 'representatives' often don't care about our interests and instead cater to those who are out to trash them. Looking to your government as a defense against the depredations of entities like RIAA is nothing but folly. If you are so lucky as to get someone to ably represent you in any legal action, your government will likely appear to testify against you as a hostile witness.Reality is that government primarily installs and protects monopolies which suck the life out of the consumer, all legal and above board, of course. (Golden rule: He who has the gold makes all the rules). Stand still, little sheep, to be shorn. Reality is that the American middle class has been systematically embezzled out of most of its real wealth over the past century, and the historical time line points with virtual certainty towards the eventual complete disappearance of the middle class, and an ever- widening gulf between a wealthy few and the great masses of the poor and disenfranchised. This is an absolutely predictable cyclic progression in human societies, so it would seem. There is ample precedent for this throughout human history.We live in an inherently dishonest society. It absolutely permeates life at all levels today. To live a 'scrupulously honest' life borders on self-destructive in todays cynical world, and may well be impossible. Actually trying to do that in any meaningful way must certainly produce a great deal of stress, uncertainty, self-recrimination and so forth. All of our institutions are fundamentally dishonest- government, business, our schools and churches and military, the medical establishment, political parties, unions, trade organizations, fraternities and sororities, the judiciary, law enforcement, gangs of neighborhood thugs or paramilitaries or bands of terrorists- and even the family itself, our relationships with others and ultimately with ourselves. Yes, a lot of us do have a conscience and do strive to live honest and ethical lives, care for others, and try to do what is right. Yes, we have ideals for each of these social units, we have expectations of right behavior in others, but in our own hearts and in honesty we see that most fall far short of such expectations, including, sadly, our own selves some of the time. So how morally compromised are you? Only a question of degree, I would imagine. Even the classical Greeks had Diogenes searching in vain with his lantern for an honest man. Jesus successfully disarmed a rock- wielding mob by simply suggesting that he who among them was without sin cast the first stone. They all dropped the rock and slunk away in shame. This is classical human soap opera here. The faces change, the plot remains ever the same.Very few will deny specific cases of dishonesty if they are pointed out. Say, for example, that our nation has made some poor choices and ran up a lot of debt and swept it all under the carpet for future generations to deal with. Much of the funds wasted on major nonsense and mischief get carved out of the hides of the middle class, through inflation and devaluation of the currency and confiscatory tax laws. What has happened to the single- income family? It is a relic of the past. Most families today must put both husband and wife to work for long hours to make it financially- and even so, real standards of living have declined precipitously. Good jobs are rapidly going off shore and many are being forced into lesser jobs with no future- and no retirement, and little or no medical insurance. Few will deny that they are lied to from all quarters- by their government, by unethical businessmen running stock swindles, by their pathetic excuse for a 'media'. Most everybody knows that a powerful cartel of American pharmaceutical companies is working feverishly to fix it so that Americans can no longer buy the same medicines for less from Canada and are forced to pay outrageous, price-rigged extortion in order to have their medicines. Which they need so much because they are abysmally ignorant about what is healthy and what is nutritious, and how very poisoned their food supply is because they have been lied to for so many years by their government and industry that they can no longer distinguish truth from lies when it comes to nutrition. There is just an endless litany of structural dishonesty wherever you look today. The current epidemic of diabetes, never before seen in this world, can be squarely laid at the doorstep of a number of evil entities and practices working in concert to cause one of the most overfed societies ever to become nonetheless badly malnourished. Oh, the evil entities? Well, they are your government, the food processor component of industry, and the medical/ insurance disease establishment. It's just obscene what you see when you turn over a rock today.Which leads to anomie. When the system is rigged, people survive by gaming the system. When it gradually becomes clear that the law is unlawful and immoral and does not respect the governed, citizens gradually begin to adapt by subtly circumventing and undermining the law. That is where we are today. It becomes increasingly foolish and impractical to respect the law when the law no longer respects the people. This is where we find ourselves today. I don't blame people for wanting to stubbornly cling to the ideals which once made us great as a nation, but I sincerely believe that today we are at great risk of losing that permanently, and to our great mutual detriment. In any society which pits citizens against each other, dry rot is already setting in. Today we are at the precipice and stand to lose any remaining unity. 'Divide and conquer'. It is the oldest game of all, and still worries away at us at the margins. Let it take hold and the inevitable result must be the degradation and the ultimate destruction of a society.I find it ludicrous that we are engaged in moral one upmanship and playing the blame game as if all it would take is for consumers to just straighten up and act right. Everybody else is golden. It's just us punk consumers, forgetting our place and acting uppity. Yeah right. This is a classic variant of "Let's you and him fight", as seen in "Games People Play" by Eric Berne years ago. Come on now, this is a high class place- act respectable.

[ibe98765]

and ibe9876, i dont know what P2P network you visit, but there has never been a $1 transaction to trade files on those systems, so no, P2P sharing is NOT criminal offsense since no profitering takes place, though many in congress are rushing bills to make it a criminal act. yet at the same time, the government ignores the FACT that sharman networks is making millions in spyware and adware revenue, and are planning to switch to a subscription service, and instead, they go after the people that cannot afford CDs, let alone lawyers. I for one would be HAPPY if kazaa was brought down and we can all return to the normal "trade CDs with friends" routine. 

You did not closely read the quoted section (The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act) that I posted eariler. Let's try again:

§ 101. Definitions Add the following between "display" and "fixed": The term "financial gain" includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.

As you can see from this definition, receiving, trading OR EVEN EXPECTING TO RECEIVE copyrighted works is considered financial gain.Now look closely at this following section of the same act. I've underlined what I think are the relevant parts in response to your statement about financial gain. Again, bear in mind that "financial gain" was defined above to include virtually anything that has any value, even if it's only as little as $0.01. But as you see here, it seems that you don't even have to have any financial gain. Just the mere act of copying more than $1000 RETAIL value worth of something within 180 day period seems like it might be enough to put someone at risk. Aren't lawyers wonderful?

§ 17 U.S.C. §§ 506 & 507 506. Criminal offenses (a) Criminal Infringement.--Any person who infringes a copyright willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain shall be punished as provided in section 2319 of title 18. either-- 1. for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or 2. by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.

[beeTee]

<snip>Reality is that government primarily installs and protects monopolies which suck the life out of the consumer, all legal and above board, of course. (Golden rule: He who has the gold makes all the rules). Stand still, little sheep, to be shorn. Reality is that the American middle class has been systematically embezzled out of most of its real wealth over the past century, and the historical time line points with virtual certainty towards the eventual complete disappearance of the middle class, and an ever- widening gulf between a wealthy few and the great masses of the poor and disenfranchised. This is an absolutely predictable cyclic progression in human societies, so it would seem. There is ample precedent for this throughout human history.<snip>

Beautiful Clutter. you said so much in so little space.

WHAT????The land of the FREE??? Who ever told you that was your enemyCome on!Yes I know my enemiesThey're the teachers who taught me to fight meCompromise, conformity, assimilation, submissionIgnorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the eliteAll of which are American dreams (8 times)copyright 1992, rage against the machine

[ibe98765]

Which leads to anomie. When the system is rigged, people survive by gaming the system. When it gradually becomes clear that the law is unlawful and immoral and does not respect the governed, citizens gradually begin to adapt by subtly circumventing and undermining the law. That is where we are today. It becomes increasingly foolish and impractical to respect the law when the law no langer respects the people. This is where we find ourselves today. I don't blame people for wanting to stubbornly cling to the ideals which once made us great as a nation, but I sincerely believe that today we are at great risk of losing that permanently, and to our great mutual detriment. In any society which pits citizens against each other, dry rot is already setting in. Today we are at the precipice and stand to lose any remaining unity. 'Divide and conquer'. It is the oldest game of all, and still worries away at us at the margins. Let it take hold and the inevitable result must be the degradation and the ultimate destruction of a society.I find it ludicrous that we are engaged in moral one upmanship and playing the blame game as if all it would take is for consumers to just straighten up and act right. Everybody else is golden. It's just us punk consumers, forgetting our place and acting uppity. Yeah right. This is a classic variant of "Let's you and him fight", as seen in "Games People Play" by Eric Berne years ago. Come on now, this is a high class place- act respectable.       

Clutter, my friend, it pains me to read such a well-written post that is so perversely negative! How do you manage to even get yourself out of bed in the morning? Boiling down your verbosity, it seems to me that you are saying:1. Our whole world and everyone in it is corrupt to some degree. Therefore, it follows that it is OK to ignore or obey only those laws that make sense to you.2. The ends justify the means is a valid principle to live by.Myself, I sort of like that old saw that I believe originated in the 1960's - If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. It's up to you as a citizen to try to help make things work as they should. You do that by voting, by writing letters, by being involved. Don't give up!It's time to take the bull by the tail and look the situation in the eye!

[havnblast]

It's time to take the bull by the tail and look the situation in the eye!

Unfortunately it's who you know and how much you have in this world to get things done. Sure I can sit at home and write letter to my congressman all day and everyday and I will get a made up letter by his staff everyday.

If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem

Again you can try to solve something, but that might not be what someone else wants and since they have money and know someday you get squashed.

The ends justify the means is a valid principle to live by

Why do you think this way of life ever got developed? It's not that hard to figure out really.

Our whole world and everyone in it is corrupt to some degree. Therefore, it follows that it is OK to ignore or obey only those laws that make sense to you.

Why not? Big Business seems to think they canThese are just my opions, I'm not being personal, just my 2 cents on the above things

[Stryder]

Ok folks, lets break this down to the very truth of the matter. It is wrong to download anything that we all know we should pay for. PERIOD. There are no ifs ands or buts. If you are being honest with yourself, you know it is wrong. But does downloading make someone a master criminal or a menace to society.....NO. And people who download should not be treated as such. Should they get some form of punishment??? Sure, but lets make sure the punishment fits the crime.And let me say this, a person who lives in a glass house should not throw stones. We ALL do something on a daily basis that we know is wrong to some degree or another. So stop and think about that before we decide to crucify anyone just becuase the wrong they commit is something you particularly don't like. Because it may come back on you full circle and then you will be asking why no one had any understanding or forgiveness for you and your wrong doing when the time comes.

[Prelude76]

CLutter, very well spoken. I've recently seen an older documentary from Michael Moore, entitled 'Roger & Me'. I recommend everyone to please give this a viewing if you haven't yet. It details the transformation of Flint, MI, a perfect town with a booming economy and high quality of life in the 50's and 60's, to it's collapse after big boy GM left town and took 30,000 jobs with it. They closed 11 plants in US, and opened 11 plants in Mexico. And what happened to that town reminds me of whats happening to our entire society these days. Only in Flint, it happened quickly, in a matter of 3 short years, whereas our change is taking several decades and is therefore MUCH harder to notice for the common folk. heck, even in Flint, many just kept praying and pretending its not really happening, that its just a temporary setback. The documentary shows people being evicted out of homes that were in such a state of disrepair it shocked me that landlord could allow humans to live in such places. it showed how auto-workers were told to cheer up, put on a smile, and go work at Taco Bell. and crime grows as people get desperate. and if you have no job and cant sell your house that is falling apart, you do what many others did; leave town and let the house rot away, vacant. And then it shows the rich class, saying Flint is great because they have a PGA tour. and that 'them lazy workers should just get off their arses and get a job or start a company". The entire middle class of Flint vanished in such a short time, leaving only the extremely rich, and the extremely poor. all because GM wanted to be more competitive and perform better on the stock market.one thing that puzzles me, what led to the creation of the 'middle class' anyways? I know its shrinking fast everywhere i look, rich getting richer while poor getting poorer, but even as recently as the 1920s, we didnt have much of middle class. so what factor led to the growth in the middle class? and can we get it revilatized with these same factors? just a thought that intrigues me.

Reality is that the American middle class has been systematically embezzled out of most of its real wealth over the past century,

not just the middle class, but the select few rich nations have even more so plundered the goods out of developing nations too. take Venezuela for example. why was there an American-sponsored coup to replace Chavez? Chavez won elections because the massive poor population there voted for him, and America said it was ok when an oil-tycoon tried to overthrow him? that's hypocracy at its worst! in the 60's Venezuela got about 60% of its own oil profits. in the 70's its was 50-50. in the 80's and 90's it grew to 70% of oil wealth flowed outside of the country, and Venezuela only got 30% of the money! Chavez was elected on the basis he'd put oil back into state hands and try to return the wealth back to the people. for that, he's labeled a dictator by the US and an oil-tycoon tries to replace him. well, lets see, how much oil profits flows outside from the US to other nations? why, i'd bet 100% of texas oil goes to Americans, or at least a select few of rich Americans. i know i'm way off topic, but the thread took an interesting 'big guy vs little guy' spin, so i thought i'd run with it.

Our whole world and everyone in it is corrupt to some degree. Therefore, it follows that it is OK to ignore or obey only those laws that make sense to you.

Why not? Big Business seems to think they can

touchee, Havnblast.

[BoardFlak]

I am probably not going to change anyone's opinion here, so I am doing this mainly to show how I see things. Here is an example I used on another board:Illustration: let's say you took a photo, and it turned out better than you ever hoped. You make it into a T-shirt, and your friends want some, so you start a home business making and selling these T-shirts. You sell a few dozen and you are happy, figuring you're off to a great start. Then one day you are walking through a mall, and there is a T-shirts booth - with YOUR T-shirt, specifically. You confront the owner of the booth, and he says "I thought it was a great design, so I copied it. Oh, and I'm not selling it, I am just sharing it with the world. Here, want one?" In a short time, you are nearly out of business, because almost no one will buy your T-shirts when they can go to the mall and get one for free. The people who are getting them for free tell you that you should be flattered they like the design well enough to want to wear it, even though they didn't pay you for it. Now, how happy are you going to be about that? Would you just wish the guy a good day and let it be? How many other T-shirt designs are you likely to make and try to sell, knowing that guy is out there waiting to copy each one and give it away for free if it's any good?That's how I see it. Someone is hurt, even if only a few people who download music fail to eventually buy it on CD - and we all know that's not the case. Surveys of downloaders have consistently shown that the majority never buy the music they download, or have any intention of stopping - and most of them figure they won't be the ones caught and sued, either.For me, it's wrong. I don't do it. I won't do it. There is music I love that I would enjoy owning - if I could get it legally. I can't, so I don't have it. Period.If I like a group, I buy their music. The only stuff I listen to online are the things put up by the artists or the companies, whether sample snippets or full songs. If I took songs in violation of copyright, I would call myself a thief. That's the truth for me, whether anyone else considers it the truth for them or not.I'm not responsible for you, but I am for me.

[ibe98765]

Ok folks, lets break this down to the very truth of the matter. It is wrong to download anything that we all know we should pay for. PERIOD. There are no ifs ands or buts. If you are being honest with yourself, you know it is wrong. But does downloading make someone a master criminal or a menace to society.....NO. And people who download should not be treated as such. Should they get some form of punishment??? Sure, but lets make sure the punishment fits the crime.And let me say this, a person who lives in a glass house should not throw stones. We ALL do something on a daily basis that we know is wrong to some degree or another. So stop and think about that before we decide to crucify anyone just becuase the wrong they commit is something you particularly don't like. Because it may come back on you full circle and then you will be asking why no one had any understanding or forgiveness for you and your wrong doing when the time comes.

Yes, I can basically agree with your first paragraph about the need for some form of punishment, if you take something that isn't yours and you get caught. But what punishment fits the crime is always a touchy subject. For instance, California has what is called a "3 strikes law":

http://www.silicon-valley.com/3strikes.html - In 1994 California voters approved a ballot initiative known as "Three Strikes and You're Out." Basically what it means is that people who are convicted of three felonies may end up facing life in prison. The actual "law" has five major moving parts. First there is the ballot initiative (i.e. Proposition 184), then there is there the actual statute that was passed (California Penal Code Section 667 ( through (i)), and then there are three other code sections that identify the types of violations that count as "strikes" against you.

Also read: http://rwor.org/a/v20/970-79/974/3strike.htmThis law was passed to stop "career criminals" from getting re-released over and over again. What's interesting is that if you have been convicted of felony crimes two times previously, even a misdemeanor offense on the 3rd time can be reclassified as a felony and you must be imprisoned for life then as a three time offender! There have been cases where shoplifting as the 3rd offense led to life imprisonment. Who said California is a liberal state? In certain Muslim countries, I believe that a theft conviction can get your fingers or hand(s) cut off!I'm not advocating putting someone in prison for life or cutting off someone's hands for music downloading but I wouldn't be surprised if the legal system in conjunction with corporate interests mandates a much higher penalty than you think might be called for...As for paragraph 2, sadly, I can't claim sainthood for myself. However, if I should choose to take something that isn't mine and I get caught, I'm willing to accept that there would likely be some form of punishment attached to the deed. I'm not going to try and use twisted logic to claim that doing so wasn't "really" stealing.

[ibe98765]

Well said, Boardflak!

[Guest LilBambi]

I don't think any of us here would say that under the current 'law' (think: current DMCA implementation) and 'attitude' of the RIAA (think: totally idiotic behavior in the face of what the consumer/individual wants in this new digital age), that sharing audio files 'managed' by the RIAA for the Big 5 Labels is legal or even the right thing to do, at least in the current environment.It is plain to see that the RIAA/Big 5 Label's mindset is not to think of sharing inferior to CD quality audio files as free advertising. They could have and been the good guy here, but they didn't and won't.Therefore I don't do any filesharing, at least until or if this mess can be fixed. And depending on their final fix for this, I may never buy another CD from any RIAA 'managed' Big 5 Label.Instead, as is my right, I boycott them entirely as a direct response to their idiotic short sighted and controlling behavior. I do not deny that they own the 'rights' to the music and can handle it as they see fit. My point is that I don't have to buy into their 'attitude.' I think it is they who need to wake up and smell the coffee, not their consumers or they may just be out of the picture ... by natural selection. They think their sales have gone down because of filesharing? They haven't seen anything yet. Wait. They are taking care of what they call the egregious (in their opinion) filesharers, but isolating themselves more and more and nailing that coffin down tight.I think that they may just see in the long run that they were wrong and that it really was probably more to do with:[*] the economy[*] the RIAA's attitude[*] the stuff they are putting out in the name of music[*] RIAA/Big 5 Labels restrictive and controlling DRM** Operating systems crash and sometimes have to be reinstalled for various reasons including emergency situations and when folks find that they can't play their 'burned' CDs (because their DRM information went out the door with the crash) or their music collection goes away with the crash and they don't get satisfaction from the vendor (which has already been happening BTW), then we will see what hits the fan. And the 'services' that house 'your' DRM info on some online source are just as bad since you may not always be online when you wish to listen.Many people just don't appreciate the RIAA's sledgehammer (DMCA) approach to what they perceive the problem is.Plus, besides being slow on the uptake, they also waited too long to say ANYTHING about filesharing, years in fact, and then they come out the gate like some righteous vindicators once they have their newly pushed and funded DMCA in hand!?!Who are they kidding? They are not just concerned about their music. They are equally anxious to silence the Indy artists by giving them NO easy and unified outlet to get their music out by vilifying ALL peer to peer filesharing.P2P Filesharing is not the problem. The RIAA/Big 5 Labels need to come up with a less restrictive and more assessible way of getting their music to the public if they wish to survive and stop vilifying P2P filesharing. And nothing they have is even close. P2P filesharing is a very cool technology and is not the demon here, but has proven that it is a very effective tool for collaboration of any kind, has it not?

[ibe98765]

U.S. bill seeks to jail Web pirates Users could face 5 years for distributing unreleased products Reuters - WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 — Internet users who distribute movies and music ahead of their official release dates could face five years in prison under a bill introduced on Thursday by several U.S. senators. SURREPTITIOUS VIDEOTAPING of movies in theaters would also be outlawed under the measure, sponsored by California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn.The bill takes aim at two practices that over the past several years have disrupted release schedules and cost movie makers an estimated $3 billion annually in lost sales, according to the bill’s sponsors.Unauthorized copies of movies often turn up in flea markets and online “peer to peer†networks such as Kazaa shortly after they are released, thanks to audience members who smuggle camcorders into theaters.In other cases, industry insiders post movies online before they are officially released.Both practices would become felonies under the bill, with maximum sentences of five years for first offenders as well as monetary damages.Unauthorized videotaping in theaters is currently a crime in four states and the District of Columbia but legal in other states. Copyright infringement is already illegal, but the bill would make such activity easier to prosecute by assuming that any copyrighted work posted online ahead of its release date has been downloaded at least 10 times, causing damages of at least $2,500."There is no legitimate purpose for a person taking copyrighted material not legally available to the public in any form and putting on the Internet for free distribution without authorization,†Feinstein said in prepared remarks.Lobbyists from the movie and recording industries applauded the bill.

[Guest LilBambi]

Enter the MPAA .... they sure didn't waste any time.Boy, I wish I had the billions to work with that the RIAA and MPAA have so I could get a few things done in congress.

[Cluttermagnet]

Which leads to anomie. When the system is rigged, people survive by gaming the system. When it gradually becomes clear that the law is unlawful and immoral and does not respect the governed, citizens gradually begin to adapt by subtly circumventing and undermining the law. That is where we are today.  (snip)I find it ludicrous that we are engaged in moral one upmanship and playing the blame game as if all it would take is for consumers to just straighten up and act right. Everybody else is golden. It's just us punk consumers, forgetting our place and acting uppity. Yeah right. This is a classic variant of "Let's you and him fight", as seen in "Games People Play" by Eric Berne years ago. Come on now, this is a high class place- act respectable.       

Clutter, my friend, it pains me to read such a well-written post that is so perversely negative! How do you manage to even get yourself out of bed in the morning? Boiling down your verbosity, it seems to me that you are saying:1. Our whole world and everyone in it is corrupt to some degree. Therefore, it follows that it is OK to ignore or obey only those laws that make sense to you.2. The ends justify the means is a valid principle to live by.

Thanks, ibe-Wow, this has been a really great dialog! The DRM/ file sharing debate is probably as good a vehicle as any to help us all to get at the larger issues here. Just so long as we don't get hung up in the details and miss the big picture. As the loud voice said in "The Wizard Of Oz", "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" As the movie plot shows, sometimes attempts at misdirection are seen through. They no longer work; they cease to have the power to distract. Dorothy's little dog pulled the curtain, and the wizard was forced to deal directly with people and even to make concessions.Actually, I'm nowhere near as negative as my last post might make me sound. View it as an attention- getting device on my part. I'm trying to reframe the debate here, because I am quite concerned that the people are being turned against themselves, against each other, in the classic, time- proven game of 'divide and conquer'. In any debate, the winner is generally the party that best succeeds in defining the terms of the debate. That is what is happening with the strong tendency of government and industry to needlessly villainize and eventually criminalize relatively minor misbehavior of its citizens. The "military- industrial complex" that Eisenhower warned us about 50 years ago has gotten way to big for its britches, and is framing the debate so as to evade any real public airing of how patently evil and corrupt it has become. They should not have to change, but we must. When you can cynically bend the law to your personal use and wield it as a weapon of war against the citizenry, things have gone too far. The situation we find ourselves in today parallels that with the aristocracies in Europe 5-10 centuries ago, where corrupt monarchies waged economic warfare against the masses to the point of triggering bloody rebellions and all sorts of illegal and antisocial behavior on the part of the peasants. The Robin Hood/ Sheriff of Nottingham legend apparently has considerable basis in fact and history. All that I have written before is my way of saying that I see America as now definitely being headed down that same road. The parallels are chilling. We're simply at an earlier point along the curve. Notice carefully that I have not openly advocated that others violate the law. Personally, I live a reasonably ethical life, I care about others, and I certainly could never be accused of being greedy or overreaching, as I live fairly modestly. I have no interest in 'winning' by needless acquisition so that I can "die with the most toys". What I have said is that I can well understand why there is now a weakened respect for the norm (anomie). I do stand by my statements that all of our institutions (and I do mean all, with no exceptions) are fundamentally dishonest. Developing and defending that assertion would involve a substantial effort, certainly on a par with a major doctoral dissertation, but this venue is not the place for doing that. Accept or reject my proposition as you will. Your decision in that regard informs your entire worldview.It's as simple as this- in a natural, time- proven progression, our laws are morphing into something that no longer protects the citizens, but rather are becoming more of a weapon to be used against them. Again, the overall dynamic is the systematic embezzlement of the real wealth of the middle class, which has been going on in America for the better part of a century now. If you are ever able to grasp this reality, you will come to see the more trivial debates such as DRM in an entirely different light. What you have going on here is the beginnings of class warfare, make no mistake about it, and when you evaluate the direction that the law is presently taking us, you must inevitably reach the conclusion that the law is gradually becoming unlawful, unconstitutional, and exploitive overall. Well, actually, that's a bit overstated. Humans have a marvelous capacity to rationalize. At present, most do not see the big picture because they are busy wrestling alligators in the swamp. They are focused more on day- to- day survival. It is far more easy to stay with comfortable delusions than to admit the existence of a very uncomfortable reality. The awakening of Neo in "The Matrix" is a powerful metaphor for that dilemma. Most folks prefer the blue pill, thank you very much! "The law" is a fairly broad and all- inclusive term as I'm using it here. Not all of our problems are the result of legislation passed by congress. Bad economic policy has devastated the nation for many years. You also have the reprehensible cowardice of a fallen, timid media responding to the manipulations of well- monied interests to remake public opinion, to criminalize relatively harmless acts and to effectively decriminalize obscenely evil acts by the big money boys (few if any of the Enron execs will serve any time, and hey- industrial pollution is back in style!). As always, the double standard- members of the oligarch class are exempted from having to obey the law. And you also have tremendous damage done by executive orders of presidential office- holders. The present admin didn't like the law of the land, so they simply cut a few orders and remade things so that they can operate under everyone's radar and evade responsibility for their acts. The unprecedented secrecy now in force guarantees that many critical records will be shielded from congressional or judicial review- or the public- for probably 50 years or more.

It's time to take the bull by the tail and look the situation in the eye! 

You weren't raised on a farm, were you? Both ends of those critters are dangerous. I generally avoid them.

It's up to you as a citizen to try to help make things work as they should. You do that by voting, by writing letters, by being involved. Don't give up!

Yes, you are right, but unfortunately, most such efforts will be in vain. I think we're already too far along the curve to effect the sort of major changes that are really needed. Neither major political party has the stomach for that, so they are not going to take it on. That would be suicide for them, politically. I do wish that more people still bothered to vote, if only because it is sometimes possible to facilitate the election of a lesser of two evils, and that really does matter in the overall scheme of things.If we allow ourselves to be deceived, if we allow ourselves to be used as a tool against our fellow citizens in name- calling, scapegoating, and overall blood letting, then I guess we deserve the bitter harvest we are going to reap. Look over there- one of the town's truly finest citizens just made a little mistake, and the local constable is getting ready to write him up for jaywalking. A crowd has gathered, and citizens are jeering and condemning his awful, illegal activity, and suggesting that he should be made to pay a stiff fine and spend a few days in jail. A block up the road, hardened criminals have just successfully robbed the bank, shot employees, and escaped without leaving any witnesses behind. All have been shot dead. The robbers have gotten away with millions in untraceable cash. And they did put a quarter in the parking meter. See, they are law- abiding. But that crowd down the road is on that poor citizen like a pit bull with a big mouthfull of ankle. Are you getting my drift at all? We're focusing on the wrong problems! We've been suckered.