US House passes bill targeting Net song swappers

WASHINGTON, Sept 28 (Reuters) - Users of Internet "peer to peer" networks, already dodging lawsuits from the recording industry, could face up to three years in prison under a bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday.

The House voted to enlist the government to a greater degree in the entertainment industry's fight against those who copy its products over the Internet.

Federal agents would be directed to educate the public about copyright rules and go after those who allow others to copy their music collections through "peer to peer" networks like Kazaa and Morpheus.

Those who secretly videotape movies when they are shown in theaters would also face prison sentences of up to three years under the bill, which passed by voice vote.

"The Internet has revolutionized how Americans locate information, shop and communicate," said Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, a sponsor of the bill. "We must not let new Internet technologies become a haven for criminals."

The Senate approved a similar bill in June, but differences must be reconciled before President George W. Bush signs it into law.

The Motion Picture Association of America applauded the bill's passage, while consumer groups, conservative groups and libraries said it would radically broaden copyright law and drag the government into a battle that should be handled by the entertainment industry.

Movie studios and recording companies have pressed Congress to help them in their fight against file-trading networks and their millions of users.

The recording industry says file-trading is partly to blame for a slump in CD sales, and movie studios have reacted with alarm as blockbuster films appear online before they're even released in theaters.

The recording industry has sued more than 3,000 individuals over the past year for copyright violations, but the Justice Department so far has brought only a handful of cases against the heaviest traffickers.

The bill would train agents to investigate intellectual-property crimes and allow them to send warnings to users they suspect of copying songs illegally. Those found to be sharing more than 1,000 copyrighted files would face jail time.

One provision of the bill is likely to anger Hollywood, as it shields companies that edit out sex and violence from movies to make them more "family friendly." Movie directors have sought to shut down such companies in court.

Copyright bills are likely to loom large in the waning weeks of Congress. The Senate this week is expected to consider a measure that would make it easier to sue peer-to-peer networks, which has drawn spirited opposition from the technology industry.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004092820130002564469&dt=20040928201300&w=RTR&coview=

HUH!

Fucking LAME.  

Like I have always said.. maybe.. instead of blaming peer-to-peer networks for slumps in music sales.. the f@#(ing RIAA should consider the fact that THEY RELEASE THE MOST WORTHLESS MUSIC IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE! as a possible reason for people not buying many CD's.

This is bullshit!!!

It's such a vaguely written law that it threatens even the manufacturer of the VCR you own because it has a "RECORD" function and therefore can serve to "induce" people into copyright infringement.  This is analagous to holding Bushmaster criminally liable for making a product that can kill someone and therefore serves to "induce" homicides.  Liability should only rest on the end user and the choice he/she makes.  

This is going on the Senate floor this week.  Every please oppose.  This hurts not only consumer access to technology (attn TIVO fans!) but also throws a wrench into technological advancement and therefore hurts businesses.  I can't believe Orin Hatch is the main author on this.  If this passes, and GWB doesn't see that this will hurt the economy and signs it into law, I'm withdrawing my affiliation to the Republican party.  I'm serious.  

I even called Dianne Feinstein's number cuz she's on the Senate judiciary committee.  LOL.  Gonna hit up Larry Craig tommorrow regarding something that doesn't involve guns for once.  Hehe.  

this cant be good.

ShadowOne,  I don't see the implication you are making about VCRs/Tivo being addressed in the bill.  What section is it in?   The only thing I see concerning video recording devices has to do with recording video in public places such as theaters.

Quoted: ShadowOne,  I don't see the implication you are making about VCRs/Tivo being addressed in the bill.  What section is it in?   The only thing I see concerning video recording devices has to do with recording video in public places such as theaters.

The potential is in the generality of interpretation of what technology is considered to be "intentionally" created to aid copyright infringement.  

Here's a historical background from savebetamax.org:

Here's why: The Betamax VCR died more than 15 years ago, but the Supreme Court decision that made the Betamax and all other VCRs legal lived on. In Sony vs. Universal (known as the Betamax decision) the Court ruled that because VCRs have legitimate uses, the technology is legal—even if some people use it to copy movies. Of course, the movie industry was lucky it lost the case against VCRs, because home video soon became Hollywood's largest source of revenue. And the freedom to use and develop new technology that was protected by the Betamax decision set the stage for the incredible growth in computer technology we've seen in the last few decades. Hollywood is Trying to Kill Betamax The Betamax ruling is the only thing that protects your right to own a VCR, tape recorder, CD-burner, DVD-burner, iPod, or TiVo. It's that important. But new legislation that's being pushed through the Senate by lobbyists for the music and movie industries would override the Betamax decision and create a huge liability for any business that makes products which can copy sound or video. This legislation (formerly known as the INDUCE Act) would essentially give Hollywood veto power over a huge range of new technologies. And if they get this power, they'll definitely use it. Even "compromise" drafts from the Copyright Office could make mp3-playing iPods ancient history; the music and movie industries want to force all content to go through their own restricted channels.

Time to start a letter writing campaign for something NOT gun-related...

I Love it!

The only way to control people is to make them all criminals.

So to get the ball rolling, they start with the young.

Lucky for us old farts that we generally believe modern music sucks. So, no loss for us.

Wait... Does this mean I can no longer download my oldies?

Quoted: Wait... Does this mean I can no longer download my oldies?

It may kill programs like Kazaa, Direct Connect, etc.  I'm not encouraging illegal activity, but I want the techonology to stay legal because it goes far beyond that.  I like having a CD burner.

Anyone have a bill number from the House and Senate?  I would like to read up and reference that before I write.  We all know just how reliable CNN is...  

They can have my mp3s when they delete them from my cold dead hard drive.

Why do CDs cost $15-20 per copy?  Because they can.

Up until now, anyway.

Quoted: Anyone have a bill number from the House and Senate?  I would like to read up and reference that before I write.  We all know just how reliable CNN is...

HR4077 and currently S.2560.  Referred to as the "Induce Act."  The people answering the phones in Congress knew it right away by that name.  

Link to bill description

Looks like the wording has been changed form earlier versions, but the implications reamin the same.

When will the tyranny of the RIAA end?  

They have failed to update their business model to keep pace with the technology and instead have malciously used copywright law and their considerable lobbying power to control the only competition they have.  

The music business sucks and and will continue to go into the shitter if they persist.  

I must say, I don't care one bit.  P2P is the AOL of piracy.

Maybe cd sales have slumped cause most of the shit they put out sucks assand they sell their cds for 15 to 25 dollars damn probably only cost them 10c to make the goddamn cd. Maybe they should get their head out of their asses and make some good music.  Most of my cds are from the 60s to 80s

Quoted: I must say, I don't care one bit.  P2P is the AOL of piracy.

You're seeing one tiny fraction of the problem, just like the idiots that make these nonsensical laws. Congratulations!

Quoted: Quoted: I must say, I don't care one bit.  P2P is the AOL of piracy. You're seeing one tiny fraction of the problem, just like the idiots that make these nonsensical laws. Congratulations! hr

How so?

Gee 3 years for song swapping, like our jails aren't already jam packed. What does a rapist usually get 5?

I'll just stick to my vinyl...sounds better anyways...

Quoted: Maybe cd sales have slumped cause most of the shit they put out sucks assand they sell their cds for 15 to 25 dollars damn probably only cost them 10c to make the goddamn cd. Maybe they should get their head out of their asses and make some good music.  Most of my cds are from the 60s to 80s

Exactly.  I like to see what Im getting first.  Tired of spending money for a Cd with maybe 1 good song.

Plus its hard to get some stuff you want now.  But they plenty of copies of the new "pop" stuff.

Quoted: Tired of spending money for a Cd with maybe 1 good song.

No shit. Can I get an amen for "the entire album sucked except one song"?

Quoted: Quoted: Tired of spending money for a Cd with maybe 1 good song. No shit. Can I get an amen for "the entire album sucked except one song"?

Way too many times.

Or the whole thing sucked.

Why dont they go after the "bootleg man" who is selling the stuff instead.

IF YOU CANT DO THE TIME...DONT DO THE CRIME!
ETA: Thieves are lowlives.JMHO

Quoted: Oh, please.  RIAA couldn't find the REAL file sharers if they were locked in an 8x8 cell with them.  The only people they catch are the ones who really have no idea what's going on, and just install the easist client to use.  There are tons of clients and networks that now block all known RIAA access, with constant, near-instant updates. Who do you REALLY think will win a tech battle: the RIAA, who works 8 hours a day and goes home, or the 16-year-old hacker who spends 18 hours a day in front of his PC trying to block them to win bragging rights in the community?  Based on my experience, the hacker will win every time. -Troy

Its still stealing.

Quoted: Oh, please.  RIAA couldn't find the REAL file sharers if they were locked in an 8x8 cell with them.  The only people they catch are the ones who really have no idea what's going on, and just install the easist client to use.  There are tons of clients and networks that now block all known RIAA access, with constant, near-instant updates. Who do you REALLY think will win a tech battle: the RIAA, who works 8 hours a day and goes home, or the 16-year-old hacker who spends 18 hours a day in front of his PC trying to block them to win bragging rights in the community?  Based on my experience, the hacker will win every time. -Troy

[Phil Hartman] You are correct, sir. [/Phil Hartman]

Quoted: Quoted: Its still stealing. ...said CaptainPooby to the man with 1450 CDs. -Troy

Said Troy to the guy with about 200 DVDs and very few pieces of recorded music. Never been a collector of music.

It is stealing. That wasnt an accusation it was a statement.

It might be of interest to you guys that groups like The Heritage Foundation and American Conservative Union oppose this bill, not because they support piracy but because of the risk for potential legal action it can pose to businesses and therefore cut down investment.  

The recently re-worded bill tries to make it more explicit that it targets end users and not manufacturers/developers, but how far up the ladder will it really go?  At best it's still a slippery slope.  Yeah, the RIAA can't compete with end users in the techonological cat-and-mouse game, so who do you think they're gonna try to go after using this law?    

Original text of the bill from earlier this year:

108th CONGRESS 2d Session S. 2560 To amend chapter 5 of title 17, United States Code, relating to inducement of copyright infringement, and for other purposes. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES June 22, 2004 Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. FRIST, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina, and Mrs. BOXER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A BILL To amend chapter 5 of title 17, United States Code, relating to inducement of copyright infringement, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004'. SEC. 2. INTENTIONAL INDUCEMENT OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. Section 501 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: `(g)(1) In this subsection, the term `intentionally induces' means intentionally aids, abets, induces, or procures, and intent may be shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies on infringement for its commercial viability. `(2) Whoever intentionally induces any violation identified in subsection (a) shall be liable as an infringer. `(3) Nothing in this subsection shall enlarge or diminish the doctrines of vicarious and contributory liability for copyright infringement or require any court to unjustly withhold or impose any secondary liability for copyright infringement.'.

 

it sure is amazing how many times the republican controlled congress has tried to take more and more freedoms away from us in just 4 short years.

patriot act
patriot act 2
victory act
campaign finance reform
induce act
etc.

amazing. remember when the republican party used to be about limited government? gone are those days. i guess we should just all settle for the lesser of two evils and just go back to sleep, huh?

yeah...

Quoted: it sure is amazing how many times the republican controlled congress has tried to take more and more freedoms away from us in just 4 short years. patriot act patriot act 2 victory act campaign finance reform induce act etc. amazing. remember when the republican party used to be about limited government? gone are those days. i guess we should just all settle for the lesser of two evils and just go back to sleep, huh? yeah...

yeah.. thats the only thing I have against this set of crooks is that they have done a damn fine job at picking away our rights and what not.  But, you wont find me trying to argue about the patriot act here.. i saw a thread like that once.. it resembled garandmans evolution thread...

Useless legislation, most of the P2P stuff is not in the U.S. and can't be touched like Kazaa.  Encrypted file-sharing will become more common, RIAA cannot hack encryption or they will be violating a law they helped get passed, the DCMA.  Encryption is the way to go!

The RIAA is a cartel, they just want to maintain the status quo they have had for the past 40+ years of screwing the artists, the artists make chump change on every cd sold (about 3% avg) - it all goes to the label. They refuse to accept the inevitable that their "business" model is obsolete and that technology has passed them by as the dinosaurs that they are.

New Law Could Send California File-Swappers To Jail

September 28, 2004

A new bill signed into law last week by California Govenor Arnold Schwarzenegger requires file-swappers to include a legitmate email address in the digital file when they share songs or movies online.  The law, which goes into effect in January, gives law enforcement the ability to charge users with a misdemeanor if the email address is not present.

The bill was introduced by State Senator Kevin Murray (D-Los Angeles) and sponsored by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).  The new language updates a current state law - originally intended to prevent counterfeiting - that requires the names and addresses of manufacturers be printed on CDs, DVDs, and videos.

"We took that model and concept and translated it to the electronic and digital world," Vans Stevenson, SVP of state legislative affairs for the MPAA, told Wired.  "It's another tool to go after counterfeiters and thieves on the internet."

While many of those in favor of the law take the same stance as Stevenson, saying it simply allows law enforcement to attack copyright infringement, critics claim its a sneaky way for copyright owners to go after file-sharing and file-swappers.  Under the new law, people are not charged with copyright violations, but are instead fined or arrested for omitting their email address.

"No one believes that it's a crime to leave your e-mail address off of a file you're sharing," Jason Schultz, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Wired.  "It's a means to an end to get around the limits of federal copyright law and give state prosecutors leverage to bust people. Now they are going to be arresting people for forgetting to list their e-mail address."

Critics also say that the law will take resource away from more important issues, such as violent crime and the fight against terrorism.  Despite opposition, the consequences for not including an email address in traded digital files are fairly stiff.  Any resident of California who shares files with more than 10 people is now required to add their email address to the file.  Those who do not could be fined up to $2,500, spend a year in jail, or both. Minors who do not include their email addresses in the files would have to pay $250 for their first and second offenses.

This is just one part of a recent crack-down in California by the governor. FMQB reported last week (9/20) that Schwarzenegger issued an executive order barring state workers from using peer-to-peer file sharing programs at work.  Previous versions of the bill would have required swappers to include their name and home address in the files.

http://fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=41927

this is such bullshit