Get ready for the PIRATE Act, you p2p scoundrels!

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

The draft bill obtained by Wired News circulated among intellectual property
subcommittee members in the House of Representatives. The document, titled
"Closing the P2P loophole in 17.U.S.C. Section 506," was drafted in coordination
with the Justice Department in response to concerns that federal prosecutors
lack sufficient legal powers to go after serious abusers, people close to the
matter said. They also said they believe Lamar Smith (R-Texas) is willing to
propose the bill if he can find co-sponsors.

If the draft becomes law, anyone sharing 2,500 or more pieces of content,
such as songs or movies, could be fined or thrown in jail. In addition, anyone
who distributes content that hasn't been released in wide distribution (for
example, pre-release copies of an upcoming movie) also would face the penalties.
Even a single file, determined by a judge to be worth more than $10,000, would
land the file sharer in prison.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 28 March 2004 00:47 (twenty-two years ago)

From the article : The industries also are pushing to portray P2P networks as dens of terrorists, child pornographers and criminals

I guess my secret's out, then.

― Barry Bruner (Barry Bruner), Sunday, 28 March 2004 00:52 (twenty-two years ago)

But seriously, how fucking stupid is this? On one hand, the internet gets pushed as a paedophile haven, and then you turn on the TV and there's a million IBM e-business ads. Haven't any of the suits considered that there's a logic gap there?

― Barry Bruner (Barry Bruner), Sunday, 28 March 2004 00:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Well I doubt the kiddie pornographers are going to have TV ads.

― Dan I., Sunday, 28 March 2004 00:56 (twenty-two years ago)

No, I mean, how can you say that the internet is a den of evil but still convince people to take their businesses online?

― Barry Bruner (Barry Bruner), Sunday, 28 March 2004 01:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, there's the Bad Internet and the Good Internet.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 28 March 2004 01:31 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't know about you guys, but why even have the internet if you cannot get hot pederast content?

― The Rebukes of Hazard (mjt), Sunday, 28 March 2004 02:47 (twenty-two years ago)

i still havent quite worked out how they're to be monitoring who has more than [X] amount of files on their computer at any one time. are they just randomly scanning users drives via the p2p itself? because, you know, you can put stuff in folders other than your shared folder...

[i never have more than 75 mp3s on my drive at any one time anyway, so this is kinda moot for me.]

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Sunday, 28 March 2004 03:15 (twenty-two years ago)

I think the key point of the bill is that it makes the sharing the big naughty thing, not the downloading, the idea being that what you share is so much more easily monitored than what you download.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Sunday, 28 March 2004 03:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Let me rephrase that. The bill makes sharing the big prosecutable thing (which is in keeping with the RIAA's recent suits); while downloading and ripping MP3s from CDs might not meet industry approval, it's much tougher to prove you've d'led or ripped something than you've shared something over a network.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Sunday, 28 March 2004 03:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Anyway, this can't be a real pirate thread until someone says ARRRRRR.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Sunday, 28 March 2004 03:32 (twenty-two years ago)

In defending the Pirate Act, Hatch said the operators of P2P networks are running a conspiracy in which they lure children and young people with free music, movies and pornography. With these "human shields," the P2P companies are trying to ransom the entertainment industries into accepting their networks as a distribution channel and source of revenue.

Once again, the entertainment industry tells the public HOW DARE YOU DEFINE APPROPRIATE BUSINESS MODELS FOR US. This is our job. You have no say in this, none.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Sunday, 28 March 2004 03:38 (twenty-two years ago)

as RIAA's Hilary Rosen declared at the height of the Napster legal fracas a couple years ago: "we want to make people think twice before starting a business." Our way or the highway, pirates...

― lovebug starski, Sunday, 28 March 2004 11:48 (twenty-two years ago)

i think so. i think the big no-no here is the sharing, not the downloading. i think a lot of the time we focus on "but i only download to try before i buy", "i only download a few tracks anyway", etc, but then if you are sharing a lot, then the real loss is not the money you would/wouldnt have spent, but the fact that you can assist a lot of other people in their non-purchasing of music.

― gareth (gareth), Sunday, 28 March 2004 12:52 (twenty-two years ago)

I thought it was common knowledge that being a distributor of free music is the crime they want to prosecute here, not the mere act of downloading something you don't own the license for?

Anyway, this is utterly insane, of course. P2P-savvy people will keep taking measures to protect themselves, leaving only the stragglers who don't adapt quickly enough to be picked off. In a way it's just forcing survival of the fittest. I could stand having less morons sharing 128kbps commercial crap on slsk and whatnot.

Isn't this beginning to sound like the premise of a joke to anyone?

"A serial rapist, a pot smoker, and an MP3 sharer were sitting together in a prison cell..."

― -_- (-_-), Sunday, 28 March 2004 18:55 (twenty-two years ago)

There's not enough "commercial crap" on slsk. That's the only reason I've kept Kazza lite.

― Colin Beckett (Colin Beckett), Sunday, 28 March 2004 18:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Meanwhile, the government continues to do jack shit about spammers, virus-spreaders, identity thieves, etc...typical.

― Baked Bean Teeth (Baked Bean Teeth), Sunday, 28 March 2004 19:05 (twenty-two years ago)

keep your eyes out for folks like "RIAA_Roolz" and "pirate_hunter" on SLSK. it's usually a dead giveaway.

― noodle vague (noodle vague), Sunday, 28 March 2004 19:21 (twenty-two years ago)

how are they going to verify that the 2500+ files being shared are all protected copyright material?

― stevem (blueski), Sunday, 28 March 2004 19:28 (twenty-two years ago)

"oh i know the filename SAYS it's the new Madonna single but really it's just one of my own recordings, I just named it this to get people listening to it"

― stevem (blueski), Sunday, 28 March 2004 19:29 (twenty-two years ago)

This is where I say that I am now sharing my external HD and now have 10,000 up!

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Sunday, 28 March 2004 20:16 (twenty-two years ago)

This scares me. I don't want to get arrested.

― Mr. Snrub (Mr. Snrub), Sunday, 28 March 2004 20:38 (twenty-two years ago)

haha adam i just saw that...you're a very brave man.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Sunday, 28 March 2004 20:50 (twenty-two years ago)

top of the world, ma! top of the world!
http://www.meredy.com/vinbw/white.jpg

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Sunday, 28 March 2004 20:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Meanwhile.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 2 April 2004 03:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Ugh. So in terms of the article (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5182898.html), what does this mean *immediately* for us? How fast can they act?

― Eve Atley, Friday, 2 April 2004 18:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Economists prove that file sharing does not impact record sales:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/05/technology/05music.html?hp

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Monday, 5 April 2004 14:43 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.