10 years in prison for file sharing???

[Jon Westfall]

Wired has an interesting front page article today:

Congress appears to be preparing assaults against peer-to-peer technology on multiple fronts.

A draft bill recently circulated among members of the House judiciary committee would make it much easier for the Justice Department to pursue criminal prosecutions against file sharers by lowering the burden of proof. The bill, obtained Thursday by Wired News, also would seek penalties of fines and prison time of up to ten years for file sharing.

(rest is at http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,62830,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1)

Now I'm all for record companies and movie studios to make a fair profit off of their work (keyword: FAIR), but come on - 10 years for posting a bad copy of a movie that's going to be out in theatres next week? And I suppose if you rape and murder someone while videotaping it you'll get an extra 5 or so years tacked on, with possibility of parole in 6 months.

Of course, the other nice fact is that it only took $150,000 to pay off a republican senator, and about 10 grand more for a democrat. you get such a deal with those republicans :roll:

[chunkymonkey75]

....I used to share on Kazaa and other Peer-to-Peers. One of my friends was contacted by his ISP about this. I no longer use those applications, it's not worth it. I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels this way.

I'm not going to argue that a murderer should serve more than 5 years. But that doesn't make sharing on Kazaa and others any more legal.

Getting licenced files on peer-to-peers is stealing...pure and simple. Even when I used Kazaa, I realized I was stealing. Stop trying to justify it.

[Pat Logsdon]

Let's keep politics out of the discussion, please.

[Jacob]

Getting licenced files on peer-to-peers is stealing...pure and simple. Even when I used Kazaa, I realized I was stealing. Stop trying to justify it.

I didn't get where dadarkmcse was justifying it.

It's not justifying copying licensed files to acknowledge that the punishment should match the crime.

In this case, it just doesn't.

10 years in prison for this? That's just lunacy.

[Jon Westfall]

Getting licenced files on peer-to-peers is stealing...pure and simple. Even when I used Kazaa, I realized I was stealing. Stop trying to justify it.

That's absolutly amazing mjpint! you somehow read words I never put in my post. No where do I justify file sharing, I'm mearly pointing out that (as Jacob put it) 10 years is just lunacy.

I'm sorry I don't believe that file sharing is a plague of our times and that poor deprived artists aren't getting their millions. I just see a lot more going on in the world that should be punished than this stupid little debate over copyrights. It isn't the major deal, its not hurting anyone in a physical sense, and because of this, I don't think it justifies 10 years in prison under any circumstance.

[Jon Westfall]

Let's keep politics out of the discussion, please.

Actually the point of my line there was to point out how futile it is to believe one party is superior to the other when both are just as flawed and (in all honesty) human. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. My personal political views did not come into play in the post.

[Zack Mahdavi]

Well, it's a true crime, any kind of P2P file sharing of copyrighted material that is. Sadly, I must admit that I also participate in this. However, lately, I've made about 80% of my music... I've deleted a bunch of mp3s and purchased the others off of Amazon/Half.com/iTunes.

It makes me feel like a better person.. :)

[chunkymonkey75]

Getting licenced files on peer-to-peers is stealing...pure and simple. Even when I used Kazaa, I realized I was stealing. Stop trying to justify it.

That's absolutly amazing mjpint! you somehow read words I never put in my post. No where do I justify file sharing, I'm mearly pointing out that (as Jacob put it) 10 years is just lunacy.

I'm sorry I don't believe that file sharing is a plague of our times and that poor deprived artists aren't getting their millions. I just see a lot more going on in the world that should be punished than this stupid little debate over copyrights. It isn't the major deal, its not hurting anyone in a physical sense, and because of this, I don't think it justifies 10 years in prison under any circumstance.

If you actually read my post, I did state that a murderer should get more than five years. You were basically saying that "file sharing is not the same as murder". Of course that is true. It is disgusting that one could commit murder and serve only five years.

But you further justify file sharing in your second post. Would you feel the same way if a mob of people went into a Best Buy and just started stealing CD's from the shelf? No different. Should we just "leave them alone" because police should be chasing murderers instead?

They have had to start coming down on people so hard because there is such a social acceptance to stealing music online. Unfortunately, for a few, they are making an example of them. 10 years is ridicules for something like this. Would we be even having this conversation if someone got 6 months probation for this?

Stealing from the rich is still stealing. People also justify stealing copies of Windows because Microsoft is a wealthy company. That's just stupid.

[Jacob]

They have had to start coming down on people so hard because there is such a social acceptance to stealing music online. Unfortunately, for a few, they are making an example of them. 10 years is ridicules for something like this. Would we be even having this conversation if someone got 6 months probation for this?

So you think that suing them for over $100,000 per song isn't enough?



Stealing from the rich is still stealing. People also justify stealing copies of Windows because Microsoft is a wealthy company. That's just stupid.

You're right, but 10 years in prison for downloading a song is also stupid.

Ten years in prison is more time than you think. Do you think someone should go to jail for 10 years for stealing a CD from BestBuy??? No, and they won't with current laws.

But now, if you download that same album you will??

Noone is saying that it's right to download or steal music, it's just that it's insane to have the punishment simply not fit the crime like this.

[chunkymonkey75]

I think we all agree on two things.

1. 10 years in prison for stealing music is ridicules.

2. Serving more time in prison for stealing music than murdering someone is an outrage.

I'm only trying to make my point that stealing is wrong, no matter what the justification is. Some people think it's right to steal because music CD's are too expensive. Stealing is still a crime. Enabling millions of people to access stolen music from my hard drive is still a crime.

I seriously doubt that anyone will actually serve 10 years in prison for this crime. The music companys' real intent is to scare some people straight. And I'm willing to bet that it has worked for many.

...I love a good debate. Sometimes I just like to shake things up a little. ;)

[Jon Westfall]

...I love a good debate. Sometimes I just like to shake things up a little. ;)

And you do accomplish that!

Anyway, the 10 years was the max for people releasing as-yet unreleased movies / music, not general file sharing. I just think its sad how much attention the record industry is giving to one form of stealing vs others.

[Jacob]

Now I would just have to find that NY Times article where they found 95% of such movies available on the 'net were made available by members of the movie industry.

Seems they'll be jailing many of their own employees.

[chunkymonkey75]

...That would not surprise me a bit. Most corporate theft is done by its own employees.

[Jon Westfall]

Really, when you think of it, who else is most likely to get their hands on it and distribute it?

When my girlfriend's favorite band, linkin park, was preparing to release their second album, all the band members that got copies that were digitally watermarked so if they leaked, they know who the culprit was.

Sad really...

[JackTheTripper]

I heard when Tori Amos was recording her last album she make a quick and dirty recording of all the songs and sent them to the musicians a week early so they could practice before actually recording. they each received a portable CD player with a CD that was superglued to the motor inside, then superglued shut. The headphones had been soldered directly to the board inside. They were required to sign a statement that they would return the units as they received them so they would know if they were tampered with.


On a side note..... correct me if I'm wrong (which I often am) but everything I read always says "Do time for downloading music" but aren't they going after the people who are hosting and distributing it?

For example, if I took my entire music collection and put it on my pooter, then shared it on a peer to peer I'd probably get busted. But let's say someone installs a peer to peer, downloads a song, then removes it from the shared folder. Are they going after them too?

[PetiteFlower]

Scared straight? I dunno maybe I'm unreasonably stubborn, but the more rabid the music/movie industries get about prosecuting people for this, the more I want to steal from them. I will NOT be intimidated by corporate posturing, for one thing, and for another, why would I want to give my money to such disgusting people?

Not that I'm saying I'm a rabid downloading/sharing maniac.....or that I'm not.....but if any corporate suit thinks they're going to take down the filesharing population with threats, they are in for a big surprise.

[Jon Westfall]

Not that I'm saying I'm a rabid downloading/sharing maniac.....or that I'm not.....but if any corporate suit thinks they're going to take down the filesharing population with threats, they are in for a big surprise.
:mrgreen:

[chunkymonkey75]

Scared straight? I dunno maybe I'm unreasonably stubborn, but the more rabid the music/movie industries get about prosecuting people for this, the more I want to steal from them. I will NOT be intimidated by corporate posturing, for one thing, and for another, why would I want to give my money to such disgusting people?

Not that I'm saying I'm a rabid downloading/sharing maniac.....or that I'm not.....but if any corporate suit thinks they're going to take down the filesharing population with threats, they are in for a big surprise.

The truth is....they are never going to stop it completely. Personally I stopped sharing. Maybe it's because of my new baby and I'd hate to do time for something so stupid. Or maybe I'm just afraid that I'm a little too pretty for prison. ;)

[Falstaff]

On a side note..... correct me if I'm wrong (which I often am) but everything I read always says "Do time for downloading music" but aren't they going after the people who are hosting and distributing it?

For example, if I took my entire music collection and put it on my pooter, then shared it on a peer to peer I'd probably get busted. But let's say someone installs a peer to peer, downloads a song, then removes it from the shared folder. Are they going after them too?

Mostly the RIAA is going after the big file uploaders, but the problem with most p2p, is that as you are downloading a song, people can upload what you have of it, which makes you an uploader. Also, they find p2p users by dropping fake copies or marked copies of songs into the dl pool, which enables them to find you, but people who are smart can avoid those files.

As much as the RIAA thinks they can do, private people will always be smarter than them. Look at all the security they have tried on CDs, how about the one where you just had to draw a line with a marker on the CD, or where you just had to hit shift as you put the CD in the CD-ROM drive to stop autorun software. EVERY time the record and movie industries tries to stop downloaders, the filesharers adapt. It is relatively easy for the RIAA to track people on Kazaa (which is why I tell all my friends to use something else if they are going to dl music/movies/software, though I tell them to do none at all...), but other applications like eMule and eDonkey are much harder to track (at least from sources I've seen). People even publish lists of IPs to block with eMule of the RIAA, MPAA, and other such organizations.

File-sharers will always triumph over the big companies because of the industry's bloated nature. Hackers can break any method of copyright protection that the music and movie industries throw at them, because they are determined, smart, and have the time. The execs at the big industry associations don't see this, instead, any drop in sales they blame on piracy. As long as those companies based on old, outdated principles exist, there will be very little desire for many people to buy CDs. But now, it doesn't take the RIAA to produce a record, and with the internet, it doesn't take as much to market either, so when the RIAA dies (hopefully soon), there will probably be a drop in prices of CDs (as artists begin recording with smaller, cheaper studios) and less bad music that the recording industry pays huge bonuses for (anyone remeber the American Idol guy?).

You can probably guess where I stand on this issue, so I'll leave it at that.

[c38b2]

As much as the RIAA thinks they can do, private people will always be smarter than them. Look at all the security they have tried on CDs, how about the one where you just had to draw a line with a marker on the CD, or where you just had to hit shift as you put the CD in the CD-ROM drive to stop autorun software.
Careful - your post contains two violations of the DMCA!!! :lol:

[PetiteFlower]

Heh, well that's why I like hub-based p2p software, in order to get into the hubs with the big "offenders" you have to be sharing a large amount of stuff yourself....which means they'd be violating the law also! Not that I think it's totally immune but it helps.

[dean_shan]

10 is way to harsh. I think that it should be 6 month max. I think the RIAA and MPAA are blowing this way out proportion. As a result of P2P I have accualy bought more music and movies then if I didn't use P2P.

[Falstaff]

Heh, well that's why I like hub-based p2p software, in order to get into the hubs with the big "offenders" you have to be sharing a large amount of stuff yourself....which means they'd be violating the law also! Not that I think it's totally immune but it helps.

Well, technically they are breaking the law with their tracking of users on Kazaa and by using Kazaa Lite, which are both violations of the EULA. Kazaa sued them over it, but I never saw a conclusion to that.

10 is way to harsh. I think that it should be 6 month max. I think the RIAA and MPAA are blowing this way out proportion. As a result of P2P I have accualy bought more music and movies then if I didn't use P2P.

They are blowing it out of proportion, since the sales are going up. The most recent statistics show that this was the Australian record industries best year ever. I got this link (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/28/1080412234274.html) from a /. story. They fudge their numbers to make it look like p2p stuff is causing them to lose money. If they acknowledged that their sales were going up, then the pro-p2p arguments would be true.

[Jon Westfall]

Heh, well that's why I like hub-based p2p software, in order to get into the hubs with the big "offenders" you have to be sharing a large amount of stuff yourself....which means they'd be violating the law also! Not that I think it's totally immune but it helps.

Well, technically they are breaking the law with their tracking of users on Kazaa and by using Kazaa Lite, which are both violations of the EULA. Kazaa sued them over it, but I never saw a conclusion to that.


Interesting how that works isn't it - big group sues little group over shakey legal grounds and gets lots of attention and support. Little group sues big group for blatent violation of licensing and gets no support or attention. This is akin to Microsoft trying to intimidate Mike Rowe into giving up his domain name - only in that case, outrage was correctly placed on the big company who was on shakey ground.

[JohnnyFlash]

I'm not going ot justify ANYTHING!

I'm not even going to try to excuse ANYTHING!

They are sellers/producers. Their job is to sell their wares for the maximum amount of money they can get for them.

I am a consumer. My job is to get their wares for as little as I can give for them. If that is zero, then so be it. And, I don't care who likes it. I do what I think is right...NOT what society thinks is right.

I don't believe a person should be held accountable for following rules that they had no input into setting up. Just my own set of personal beliefs people.

I have well over $600 US of PPC wares on my E-805, and I am VERY proud to say that I payed for almost none of it.

When producers and distributors stop overcharging and trying to screw me, I'll think about stopping the screwing I'm currently giving them.

And spare me all your chastizing...I don't care. LIke I said already, I make up my own mind, and do what I think is right. I don't do what society thinks is acceptable, and I don't have my opinions formed for me by politicians.

Period.[/b][/u]

[dean_shan]

Wow $600! What all do you have?

[JohnnyFlash]

Wow $600! What all do you have?

Hi, Dean~

A more appropriate question would be, "What don't I have?"

As far as answering goes, I'm not entirely sure it would be a good idea for me to list the apps in a public forum on the web.

Liability and all that, you know.

But, I don't plan to change my current behaviour as long as the DRM train keeps rolling. (See Ed Hansberry's front page story from 2:00 pm this afternoon)

[dean_shan]

But, I don't plan to change my current behaviour as long as the DRM train keeps rolling. (See Ed Hansberry's front page story from 2:00 pm this afternoon)

Yeah I know what you're saying.

[Kacey Green]

Getting licenced files on peer-to-peers is stealing...pure and simple. Even when I used Kazaa, I realized I was stealing. Stop trying to justify it.

That's absolutly amazing mjpint! you somehow read words I never put in my post. No where do I justify file sharing, I'm mearly pointing out that (as Jacob put it) 10 years is just lunacy.

I'm sorry I don't believe that file sharing is a plague of our times and that poor deprived artists aren't getting their millions. I just see a lot more going on in the world that should be punished than this stupid little debate over copyrights. It isn't the major deal, its not hurting anyone in a physical sense, and because of this, I don't think it justifies 10 years in prison under any circumstance.

If you actually read my post, I did state that a murderer should get more than five years. You were basically saying that "file sharing is not the same as murder". Of course that is true. It is disgusting that one could commit murder and serve only five years.

But you further justify file sharing in your second post. Would you feel the same way if a mob of people went into a Best Buy and just started stealing CD's from the shelf? No different. Should we just "leave them alone" because police should be chasing murderers instead?

They have had to start coming down on people so hard because there is such a social acceptance to stealing music online. Unfortunately, for a few, they are making an example of them. 10 years is ridicules for something like this. Would we be even having this conversation if someone got 6 months probation for this?

Stealing from the rich is still stealing. People also justify stealing copies of Windows because Microsoft is a wealthy company. That's just stupid.
Nobody in that mob would get 10 years.

Post Script
How does a guest post? I thought this board only allowed registered users to post.