SEIG HEIL! Gonzalez wants to imprison people for ATTEMPTED copyright infringement

[Hardrock69]

US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has proposed tightening the United States' intellectual property laws. Titled the "Intellectual Property Protection Act," the proposed legislation would for the first time criminalize attempted copyright infringement.

If the name sounds familiar, it's because it has been used before. Towards the end of 2004, eight different IP-related bills were combined into a legislative package that failed to emerge from Congress.

The IPPA would come down harder on those found to have violated the DMCA, subjecting them to new forfeiture and restitution provisions. "Any property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit or facilitate the commission of the offense" of violating the DMCA could be confiscated, according to the text of the legislation.

Repeat offenders would be punished with stiffer penalties, and, for the first time, the copyright infringement convictions would not have to be identical to one another for the heavier penalties to take affect.

Gonzales' proposed legislation would also go after counterfeiters, and those found guilty of running counterfeiting operations that "pose health and safety dangers" could face up to 20 years in prison or even life imprisonment if the person convicted "knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death."

The FBI's wire-tapping powers would also be expanded to cover some copyright infringement investigations. Law enforcement officers investigating criminal copyright infringement and trafficking in counterfeit goods and services would be able to get warrants to tap voice and electronic communications.

Although they have yet to publicly comment on the IPPA, the recording and movie industries will be pleased with the Department of Justice's proposed legislation. They have supported both the INDUCE Act and the Pirate Act in the past, and the IPPA goes further than either of those two bills when it comes to expanding the scope of IP enforcement efforts.

In order to pass, the IPPA will have to find a sponsor in Congress, which shouldn't be too difficult. Once that happens, it may face the same uphill fight as other overly-broad IP legislation. We'll keep an eye on the IPPA should the legislation be formally introduced.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070515-intellectual-property-protection-act-to-make-attemped-infringement-illegal.html

[BITEYOASS]

I think they tried some sham like this before, it was called the war on drugs.

[Big Train]

I could not be more for it. Of course, I'm in the intellectual property business. A bill will some teeth and enforcement would be nice.

Something to ponder though. This bill is coming down from the software giants. The same guys who bring you the "DRM Free" arguments for MP3', yet keep their own stuff proprietary as possible. You don't see Microsoft or Apple lining up to show you their source code.

Software theft is a bigger business than music and movie pirating ever will be and now they are stepping in to put some teeth in it.

I say great.

[Hardrock69]

Hey, you are guilty of thinking about committing some crime.

I am going to report you to the FBI.
:rolleyes:

Though if they were to arrest everyone who ever attempted to download a song, half the country would be in prison.

It is unfeasible.

[BITEYOASS]

And every single RothArmy member would be in prison for attempting to download those unreleased VH songs. :mad:

[Big Train]

well, if we all look in the mirror, it IS infringement. You are stealing someone's work and livelihood, it's not some imagined thing that if you just download this lil movie or software or music, it won't hurt anyone. It does, I've seen to much.

It is not feasible, you are correct. The idea is to go after the big fish as much as possible which scares a certain % of the little fish from doing it.

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
Though if they were to arrest everyone who ever attempted to download a song, half the country would be in prison.

It is unfeasible.

Under this logic, why even have speed limits? Why have laws regarding trash disposal and recycling? Why have tax laws. After all, everyone speeds. Everyone has, at one time of other, either littered or put their plastics with their papers, etc. And no one declares absolutely every penny they make (won some cash at a poker game? Do some freelance tutoring on the side?).

What's the thing the courts are weighed down with the most? Drug offenses. Now, we SHOULD abolish those laws, but as they exist, they shouldn't be ignored.

I agree with BT on this...to an extent. For private home use, yeah, it should absolutely be AOK. If someone is pirating music, movies, etc for commercial purposes, then they've dug their own grave as far as I'm concerned.

[FORD]

Let the corporate cops try to arrest me for my bootleg copy of Vista. Which, BTW I never bothered installing, because it BLOWS.

I'll greet the motherfuckers with a bullet to the head.

At least then there will be the question of an ACTUAL crime for a jury to argue about.

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

So, FORD, you have a right to bootleg a copy of anyting you like? Does that give, say, Rolling Stone magazine to publish an article of yours without your comsent, permission, or compensation? What if Random House decides, Hey let's do an anthology of so and so's work...nah, no need for a contract or pay, if he comes here or contacts us about this, hell, we'll put a bullet through hsi brain, problem solved?

Come on. You've goota be kidding.

[Guitar Shark]

I don't understand the outrage here. Hardrock, you seem to be arguing that it isn't a crime to attempt a crime, which is simply wrong. Attempted kidnapping. Attempted murder. The list goes on. The penalties aren't as stiff, but in many cases it's still a crime to attempt a crime.

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
I don't understand the outrage here. Hardrock, you seem to be arguing that it isn't a crime to attempt a crime, which is simply wrong. Attempted kidnapping. Attempted murder. The list goes on. The penalties aren't as stiff, but in many cases it's still a crime to attempt a crime.

Any time you're ready to attempt to stop feeling the need to attempt to use the word "attempt" 5 billion times in a single post, feel free to give that an attempt. :D

[FORD]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
So, FORD, you have a right to bootleg a copy of anyting you like? Does that give, say, Rolling Stone magazine to publish an article of yours without your comsent, permission, or compensation? What if Random House decides, Hey let's do an anthology of so and so's work...nah, no need for a contract or pay, if he comes here or contacts us about this, hell, we'll put a bullet through hsi brain, problem solved?

Come on. You've goota be kidding.

Rolling Stone would be selling that article in their magazine, as would Random House. I'm not selling anything. To the contrary, by participating in torrent trading music sites, I'm helping to take the profits OUT of bootlegging music. And it's music that's not for sale commercially in the first place, so the RIAA should have nothing to say about it. But they claim "ownership" of it anyway.

Here's an even more ridiculous example. A friend of mine owns a bar. He owns all the coin operated machines in the bar, including the jukebox. He owns every CD in that jukebox. Yet the RIAA nazis and the music publishing nazis demand that he pay a percentage of the money made on that jukebox.

Why should he pay again and again for CD's that he already OWNS??

And make no mistake, they would do the same to your personal music collection, if they could figure out how to do it. Rip it to your hard drive? You pay. Rip it again to an I-pod? Pay up. Make a DLR mix CD to play in your car rather than carry all the albums with you? It will cost you. These "intellectual property" nazis are claiming the "right" to do all of the above.

Well FUCK that. Once a CD or a DVD is paid for, it is not the property of the record label, the RIAA fascists or anyone else, except the person who paid for it.

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by FORD
Once a CD or a DVD is paid for, it is not the property of the record label, the RIAA fascists or anyone else, except the person who paid for it.

Which is what i said I agreed with in my earlier post: private use should not be subjected to these laws. But public, commercial use (such as your friends bar: the music is being used to create a feel or vibe, to establish what this bar is about and offers, just like as a movie employs a soundtrack). (No different really then Van Hagar having to pay dave royalties for playing and performing songs that he had a hand in writing on the last tour)

[FORD]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
I don't understand the outrage here. Hardrock, you seem to be arguing that it isn't a crime to attempt a crime, which is simply wrong. Attempted kidnapping. Attempted murder. The list goes on. The penalties aren't as stiff, but in many cases it's still a crime to attempt a crime.

But in the case of attempted kidnapping or murder, the intent is usually obvious, and in both cases, an assault is likely committed, so that makes it a criminal matter anyway.

Attempted theft, if that's what you want to call this, is a little harder to prove. To use a non-cyber analogy, let's say you went to Best Buy and grabbed a CD out of the rack. You then hide that CD under your jacket, but just before you walk out of the store, you change your mind and ditch the CD.

Have you attempted theft? And if so, how do you prove it?

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by FORD
And it's music that's not for sale commercially in the first place, so the RIAA should have nothing to say about it. But they claim "ownership" of it anyway.




but here's the thing, you're arguing against existing copyright law.

whether you think it's good law or not, the current structure is that when i create something, i own it.


when i create and record a song, i own that song. (or, i might allow by contract, for my music company to own the song.)

whether i (or whatever person i assign the rights to that song) sell that song to chevy for a commercial, whether i sell the song on a CD, whether i decide to give it away for free by posting it on the internet, or whether i decide to leave it rotting in my vault in 5150, it's still MY creation and MY property. I decide what to do (or not do) with it.

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
For private home use, yeah, it should absolutely be AOK. If someone is pirating music, movies, etc for commercial purposes, then they've dug their own grave as far as I'm concerned.

I agree.



I don't understand the outrage here. Hardrock, you seem to be arguing that it isn't a crime to attempt a crime, which is simply wrong. Attempted kidnapping. Attempted murder. The list goes on. The penalties aren't as stiff, but in many cases it's still a crime to attempt a crime.


No I am not arguing that at all.

But where does it end?

Attempted murder is not EVEN in the same category as attempting to download a song off the net.

If I want a studio album, I will buy it. Preferably from a used cd store.


But if it is not something commercially available, like bootleg concert recordings, then as far as I am concerned, the copyright of the recording belongs to the person who recorded it.

I will NEVER sell bootlegs.


Also it is not taking money out of labels, artists, or other people's pockets.

That is the biggest load of fucking bullshit.

If the recording in question was available commercially, perhaps it would be.

But it is the same argument about how downloading an album is a "lost sale".

No...it is only a "lost sale" if someone would have bought it, but chooses to download it for free.

If they would never have actually bought it in the first place, the label did not 'lose' shit!

BT, you have a vested interest in your position, as it is your livelihood.

Same as the Mafia would be upset if you tried to move into their territory and start loan-sharking.

Too bad you got involved in a business that is nothing short of a legitimate criminal enterprise.

And one more thing.

Why is the RIAA not funneling money to the artists and record labels when they sue someone and forcibly extract money from them?

It is not THEIR money....the RIAA deserves no "royalties" because they created NOTHING!

So I say again...where will it end?

So someone 'attempts' to download a song.

Well GUESS WHAT?

Surfing the net could be seen as "attempting" to download a song!!! After all, that is the means people use to find songs to download, eh?

Saying that surfing the net is 'attempting' to download a song is the same as saying that by driving your car, that is 'attempting' to exceed the speed limit!!

Next thing you know, the RIAA Gestapo will be kicking down peoples' doors because they want to make sure someone who downloaded music legitimately is not doing something they should not, like burning a copy onto a cd for personal use!

Of course once inside your house, then they can search at will for anything else that "might be" considered "contraband".

Of course, then they might see that you own a TV and a VCR or Tivo, and arrest you for attempting to record shows off of cable!

FUCK THE RIAA GESTAPO AND THEIR GODDAMNABLE FUCKING NAZI ACTIVITIES!!!
:mad:

[steve]

Aa an Architect, I think this is GREAT!

From now on every time someone so much as LOOKS at one of the buildings I've helped design, CHA_CHING!! :)

The difference between computer software companies or liscensed professionals (doctors, engineers, etc.) and the Music Industry(tm), is that Microsoft does not charge you for the "sheer honor" of LOOKING at it's Windows screen - only for using it as a tool. An Engineer does not charge you for looking at the bridge, and even does not receive any money for your use of it! Rather, only for the single, one time professional design fee (*and his drawings cannot be reproduced or used without permission).

If the music industry were honest about intellectual property, music copyrights would be limited to reproduction in terms of its USE (aka: a club owner playing music to entertain guests, that is a "use". Or a band covering a certain song to make money, or a movie using music in it's soundtrack. Merely hearing something isn't such a use, rather just a common sensory observation.

[katie]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
I agree.





No I am not arguing that at all.

But where does it end?

Attempted murder is not EVEN in the same category as attempting to download a song off the net.

If I want a studio album, I will buy it. Preferably from a used cd store.


But if it is not something commercially available, like bootleg concert recordings, then as far as I am concerned, the copyright of the recording belongs to the person who recorded it.

I will NEVER sell bootlegs.


Also it is not taking money out of labels, artists, or other people's pockets.

That is the biggest load of fucking bullshit.

If the recording in question was available commercially, perhaps it would be.

But it is the same argument about how downloading an album is a "lost sale".

No...it is only a "lost sale" if someone would have bought it, but chooses to download it for free.

If they would never have actually bought it in the first place, the label did not 'lose' shit!

BT, you have a vested interest in your position, as it is your livelihood.

Same as the Mafia would be upset if you tried to move into their territory and start loan-sharking.

Too bad you got involved in a business that is nothing short of a legitimate criminal enterprise.

And one more thing.

Why is the RIAA not funneling money to the artists and record labels when they sue someone and forcibly extract money from them?

It is not THEIR money....the RIAA deserves no "royalties" because they created NOTHING!

So I say again...where will it end?

So someone 'attempts' to download a song.

Well GUESS WHAT?

Surfing the net could be seen as "attempting" to download a song!!! After all, that is the means people use to find songs to download, eh?

Saying that surfing the net is 'attempting' to download a song is the same as saying that by driving your car, that is 'attempting' to exceed the speed limit!!

Next thing you know, the RIAA Gestapo will be kicking down peoples' doors because they want to make sure someone who downloaded music legitimately is not doing something they should not, like burning a copy onto a cd for personal use!

Of course once inside your house, then they can search at will for anything else that "might be" considered "contraband".

Of course, then they might see that you own a TV and a VCR or Tivo, and arrest you for attempting to record shows off of cable!

FUCK THE RIAA GESTAPO AND THEIR GODDAMNABLE FUCKING NAZI ACTIVITIES!!!
:mad:


I think you should chill out brother and log on to .....http://www.aimoo.com/forum/postview.cfm?id=386834&CategoryID=470797&ThreadID=2477834

you know it makes sense

[Big Train]

Originally posted by FORD
Let the corporate cops try to arrest me for my bootleg copy of Vista. Which, BTW I never bothered installing, because it BLOWS.

I'll greet the motherfuckers with a bullet to the head.

At least then there will be the question of an ACTUAL crime for a jury to argue about.

so you took a pair of shoes from a store, took them home only to find out they didn't fit, so therefore you didn't not steal them in the first place? Do you ever say this stuff out loud to yourself?

I don't understand why people can't wrap their heads around this simple concept. If it was not yours to take, if it the person/site who offered to wasn't theirs to offer and you took it, it's theft. If it was a baseball, a car or money, this would be clear to you. It is no different with intellectual property.

That is sandbox, your-mom-should-have-told-you stuff.

[Big Train]

If I want a studio album, I will buy it. Preferably from a used cd store.


But if it is not something commercially available, like bootleg concert recordings, then as far as I am concerned, the copyright of the recording belongs to the person who recorded it.

I will NEVER sell bootlegs.


Also it is not taking money out of labels, artists, or other people's pockets.

That is the biggest load of fucking bullshit.

If the recording in question was available commercially, perhaps it would be.

But it is the same argument about how downloading an album is a "lost sale".

No...it is only a "lost sale" if someone would have bought it, but chooses to download it for free.

If they would never have actually bought it in the first place, the label did not 'lose' shit!

BT, you have a vested interest in your position, as it is your livelihood.

Same as the Mafia would be upset if you tried to move into their territory and start loan-sharking.

Too bad you got involved in a business that is nothing short of a legitimate criminal enterprise.

And one more thing.

Why is the RIAA not funneling money to the artists and record labels when they sue someone and forcibly extract money from them?

It is not THEIR money....the RIAA deserves no "royalties" because they created NOTHING!


FUCK THE RIAA GESTAPO AND THEIR GODDAMNABLE FUCKING NAZI ACTIVITIES!!!
:mad: [/B][/QUOTE]

Wow, you said a lot there, so I'll try to focus on a few points.

Number one, why are you basing all of this on "the customer might have/might have not" purchased an album as a basis for theft. If it wasn't yours to take and you took it, it is a theft and in our words "a lost sale".

Cuz it is. There is no physical inventory to lose, yes you are right, but by taking it, you removed ANY incentive to buy at all, thus defeating this high-minded, well I MIGHT have bought it logic. By removing the incentive to buy, I have no way to turn you into a customer for the product you already own. If you share it with 10 million people, you've now removed that incentive from EVERYONE, denying me the ability to profit from the sale of the work I put in, not you. So yes, it absolutely is a lost sale. The rest of these arguments are things that people say to themselves to make them sleep better at night. End of story.

Bootlegs are there and have always been there. Those who own the content and performance, the artists, should be those in control of how those works are used.

As far as the artists getting paid in these settlements, they are in most cases. But again, understand the deal, which everything THINKS they know. An artist signing a deal with a label signs away the rights to the material in exchange for financing and promotion of the project and a % of the profits. So those settlements are being paid to the rights holders, the labels.

You may think we are all evil, but we aren't. The majority of us are hardworking, honest people doing all that we can to make a buck in a world that consumes every bit of what we make, while silmutaneously saying our work has no value.

Don't worry about me, I've made my money. I just worry about the staffers who's lives are being ruined because the government is failing to protect their livelihoods. 400 people at Warner just lost their job last week. But don't go to Ford's house and ask him about it, or you will get a bullet for your trouble.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Big Train


I don't understand why people can't wrap their heads around this simple concept. If it was not yours to take, if it the person/site who offered to wasn't theirs to offer and you took it, it's theft. If it was a baseball, a car or money, this would be clear to you. It is no different with intellectual property.

That is sandbox, your-mom-should-have-told-you stuff.

If the RIAA was in charge of baseballs, you would have to pay for each pitch. If they were in charge of the automobile industry, they would remove the keylock ignition system and replace it with a credit card reader so you would be forced to pay every time you wanted to drive your own car..

That's what pisses me off.

[Big Train]

Again, you are talking durable goods vs. intellectual property.

Nobody is out to get you, but we do want to profit from our creations and we should have the right to do so.

[DLR'sCock]

Originally posted by FORD
Rolling Stone would be selling that article in their magazine, as would Random House. I'm not selling anything. To the contrary, by participating in torrent trading music sites, I'm helping to take the profits OUT of bootlegging music. And it's music that's not for sale commercially in the first place, so the RIAA should have nothing to say about it. But they claim "ownership" of it anyway.

Here's an even more ridiculous example. A friend of mine owns a bar. He owns all the coin operated machines in the bar, including the jukebox. He owns every CD in that jukebox. Yet the RIAA nazis and the music publishing nazis demand that he pay a percentage of the money made on that jukebox.

Why should he pay again and again for CD's that he already OWNS??

And make no mistake, they would do the same to your personal music collection, if they could figure out how to do it. Rip it to your hard drive? You pay. Rip it again to an I-pod? Pay up. Make a DLR mix CD to play in your car rather than carry all the albums with you? It will cost you. These "intellectual property" nazis are claiming the "right" to do all of the above.

Well FUCK that. Once a CD or a DVD is paid for, it is not the property of the record label, the RIAA fascists or anyone else, except the person who paid for it.


The music publishing is collected by BMI and ASCAP which supposed to go to the owner of the publishing which in many or most cases 100% or 50% is the artist, but it can also be a publishing company or even the record company may have purchased a portion of the publishing from the artist.

Also NO MATTER WHAT OR WHO OWNS THE PUBLISHING 50% goes to the WRITER OF THE SONG.


The point being, you are making money by using someone else's intellectual property.

I thought most bars pay like $1000 a year total to ascap and bmi right????


This goes for all types of publishing royalties.

[DLR'sCock]

The monies collected by bars, clubs, and radio eventually do not add up to alot that is paid out to most recording artists and the owners of the publishing, unless you are a commercially HUGE artist.

[Big Train]

So because it's only a little, we just shouldn't bother trying to collect at all?

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by FORD
If the RIAA was in charge of baseballs, you would have to pay for each pitch. If they were in charge of the automobile industry, they would remove the keylock ignition system and replace it with a credit card reader so you would be forced to pay every time you wanted to drive your own car..

That's what pisses me off.

not quite the same, dude.

when you buy a car, it is EXPLICIT that you are buying the full use of the car.

when you buy a song, it is EXPLICIT that you are buying the ability to listen to that song for personal enjoyment whenever you want.


and if you buy the SAME jukebox your bar-owner friend bought and put it in your basement, again, you can listen to it whenever you want.


but if you try to MAKE MONEY off of it, but having it part of the ambience that draws paying customers into your bar, then you have to pay.

what's unfair about that?


it's the same as if i buy a CD it doesn't give me the right to include any of those songs in a movie that i make.