PDA

View Full Version : Bill to put song swappers in jail


DakotaGuy
Jul 17, 2003, 04:02 PM
Read this link from billboard.com

http://www.billboard.com/bb/daily/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1935724

If something like this was to pass it might be the green light for iTMS. Comments...

XnavxeMiyyep
Jul 17, 2003, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
Read this link from billboard.com

http://www.billboard.com/bb/daily/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1935724

If something like this was to pass it might be the green light for iTMS. Comments...
Not only would it be great for iTMS, it would put around half the US in jail. :D

Abstract
Jul 17, 2003, 04:09 PM
I still like downloading songs for free, despite there being iTMS. Its just a great way for me to buy music. I don't buy a shirt unless I see it, and I get to try it on. I'll always buy music, but I'm starting to hate the music industry more and more.

Ah well, good thing I live in Canada. :cool:

macguymike
Jul 17, 2003, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
If something like this was to pass it might be the green light for iTMS. Comments...

Yeah.. where did they get this number from?

The Conyers-Berman bill would operate under the assumption that each copyrighted work made available through a computer network was copied by others at least 10 times for a total retail value of $2,500.

How does 10 x 1 song = $2,500??

Anyone?

hacurio1
Jul 17, 2003, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by macguymike
Yeah.. where did they get this number from?



How does 10 x 1 song = $2,500??

Anyone?

Yeah.....I don't want to be rude but he is the same As....l who proposed detroying computers that share by deleting HDs. I have no idea how this guy got to where he is, but if we elect these people, something is wring with the system! :mad:

Dazzler
Jul 17, 2003, 05:55 PM
It's great to see that the US law enforcement bureaus apparently have enough free time and available resources to concentrate on incarcerating your 14yr old neighbour for downloading the latest Britney single, rather than spending time investigating and apprehending those people who import and sell drugs, rape, maim and kill people in their homes for $10.00 etc...

In comparison it all seems so petty.

P-Worm
Jul 17, 2003, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by hacurio1
Yeah.....I don't want to be rude but he is the same As....l who proposed detroying computers that share by deleting HDs. I have no idea how this guy got to where he is, but if we elect these people, something is wring with the system! :mad:

That guy is my state senator Orin Hatch. But don't worry, I think he is a moron too. :mad:

P-Worm

QCassidy352
Jul 17, 2003, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Abstract
I still like downloading songs for free, despite there being iTMS. Its just a great way for me to buy music. I don't buy a shirt unless I see it, and I get to try it on. I'll always buy music, but I'm starting to hate the music industry more and more.

Ah well, good thing I live in Canada. :cool:

I agree with you, on all points. And Canada is looking better to me by the day. :mad:

LethalWolfe
Jul 17, 2003, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by Dazzler
It's great to see that the US law enforcement bureaus apparently have enough free time and available resources to concentrate on incarcerating your 14yr old neighbour for downloading the latest Britney single, rather than spending time investigating and apprehending those people who import and sell drugs, rape, maim and kill people in their homes for $10.00 etc...

In comparison it all seems so petty.

What are you ranting about? This is a Bill being proposed by two congressmen. It has nothing to do w/law enforcement agencies which, as the name implies, enforce the law. They do not make it.


Lethal

Das
Jul 17, 2003, 06:30 PM
Dangit, that stupid Bill, he's always ruining my fun. First the poodle then this...

Anyhoo, I guess when some 80 year old says Kazaa you know it's time to move on to another system. Really, it's like when Hillary Clinton did the macarena, just then you knew it died. I guess its on to another system, newsgroups, anonymizers or just grabbing music from a wireless hotspot...supposing I actually downloaded music in the first place.

MrMacMan
Jul 17, 2003, 06:37 PM
You must be ****ing (excuse me) ****ing kidding me.
The Conyers-Berman bill would operate under the assumption that each copyrighted work made available through a computer network was copied by others at least 10 times for a total retail value of $2,500.
1. How are they proving that:
a) That song was on the network
b) That song was downloaded by 10 people.
And If they know both of those THEY are breaking the law by either tracking your network connection, pining you like crazy or have hacked you.


And why aren't republicans ALL over this?

It had 'Steal Our Privacy' Written ALL over it!

[mod. edit - You know better than that.]

jadariv
Jul 17, 2003, 07:02 PM
It was only a matter of time before a bill like this came around. I don't know why they just can't use current copyright laws. I suppose you make it look like a felony and a lot of people won't do it anymore.

It is a little scary how they can get your name from your isp though. So much for internet anonymity.

NavyIntel007
Jul 17, 2003, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by QCassidy352
I agree with you, on all points. And Canada is looking better to me by the day. :mad:

Don't be so sure... The CRIA has just as much of a powerful lobby in Ottawa. You can't be so sure that this kind of legislation won't get introduced.

Yes, there are more serious crimes but last time I checked shoplifting was still illegal. Copying someones work verbatim and taking credit for it when writing a paper is still illegal with the penalty being you get kicked out of school (if you're in school) or fined.

It's called breaking the law. Whether you're selling bootleg cds on the street corner or dealing drugs, it's illegal. The fact is The Man has told you it is wrong, told you he will sue you for what he feels is rightfully his, and told you he is willing to zap your computer. Now, it will be illegal and everyone starts crying about it. ITS STEALING! And with at least one WalMart in just about every county in this country, Amazon.com with their super selecton of CDs and affordable online digital music stores there is no excuse for this behavior.

funkywhat2
Jul 17, 2003, 11:23 PM
All the music I've ever downloaded (and this is not a lie) has either been lost in reformats, disk crashes, etc. or purchased weeks asfter downloading the song. At my height of Kazaa use, I was also buying the most CD's I had ever purchased (some five a month). I, like a poster above, will only purchase something after using it, trying it on, having my neighbor tell me how good it is.

Besides, if it become too hard to download, I'll just burn discs. But if I do that, then I won't buy CD's anymore.

Personally, it makes me mad when people steal music with no intention on purchasing. Those of use who are semi-legit (I'm breaking the law, yes, but then almost making up for it :D ) use these tools as a service.

What do you think of this: An RIAA website with full length song samples, maybe one or two songs from a CD, with the option to buy after listening. Make the prices a bit lower, since you'll be buying direct from a music industry lobbiest group. I think that would help curb some of this problem.

hacurio1
Jul 17, 2003, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Don't be so sure... The CRIA has just as much of a powerful lobby in Ottawa. You can't be so sure that this kind of legislation won't get introduced.

Yes, there are more serious crimes but last time I checked shoplifting was still illegal. Copying someones work verbatim and taking credit for it when writing a paper is still illegal with the penalty being you get kicked out of school (if you're in school) or fined.

It's called breaking the law. Whether you're selling bootleg cds on the street corner or dealing drugs, it's illegal. The fact is The Man has told you it is wrong, told you he will sue you for what he feels is rightfully his, and told you he is willing to zap your computer. Now, it will be illegal and everyone starts crying about it. ITS STEALING! And with at least one WalMart in just about every county in this country, Amazon.com with their super selecton of CDs and affordable online digital music stores there is no excuse for this behavior.

Iím sure most people in these forums will agree with you to the illegal nature of P2P piracy, but most complain about the moronic solution this guy is proposing. Piracy itís illegal, but itís completely nonsense to put 8-19 year old kids in prison because of it. Not only that irritates me, but his other suggestions that clearly violate any aspect of privacy. He suggested immunity for copyright holders to allow them to access and destroy or hack computers who are SUSPECTED (suspected being the key word here) of illegally having copyrighted material. Would you agree if the Police put your 10-year-old nephew in jail because he stole a 99 cents Pop? last time I checked shoplifting was still illegal! So is speeding, lets put everybody who speeds in jail!

MrMacMan
Jul 17, 2003, 11:49 PM
Meh, I say bring it own.

They convict me of doing anything I will bring it to the Supreme Court.

Dazzler
Jul 18, 2003, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
What are you ranting about? This is a Bill being proposed by two congressmen. It has nothing to do w/law enforcement agencies which, as the name implies, enforce the law. They do not make it.


Lethal

Okay, LethalWolfe, try to keep up here. I'd hate for another conclusion to be mistaken for a "rant".

The two Congressmen are proposing a bill, which if passed "would " make it easier to slap criminal charges on Internet users who copy music..." (to quote the original article).

So let's say these two Congressmen are successful, the Bill is passed into legislation and becomes law.

To slap criminal charges on anyone, they have to do something illegal, to make them a criminal, which means they are breaking the law. Now, who enforces the law?

THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.

Sorry for reaching a conclusion and not giving you the steps in the middle.

QCassidy352
Jul 18, 2003, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by hacurio1
He suggested immunity for copyright holders to allow them to access and destroy or hack computers who are SUSPECTED (suspected being the key word here) of illegally having copyrighted material.

Unconsitutional on so many levels. But then, so is the patriot act, and that doesn't seem to be stopping anything. :rolleyes: