Hollywood anti-p2p ‘FBI’ bill
p2pnet.net News Feature:- HR 4077, the Piracy Deterrence and Education Act, yet another Hollywood inspired bill anti-p2p ’scare’ bill, will be voted on by the House of Representatives.
“Massive volumes of illegal activity, including the distribution of child pornography, viruses, and confidential personal information, and copyright infringement occur on publicly accessible peer-to-peer file sharing services every day,” says SEC. 9 (see below).
“Some publicly accessible peer-to-peer file sharing services expose consumers, particularly children, to serious risks, including legal liability, loss of privacy, threats to computer security, and exposure to illegal and inappropriate material.”
With the Big Four record label cartel and the major movie studios behind it, Hollywood supporters Howard Berman and Lamar Smith acting as point men and software and hardware manufacturers bringing up the rear, the PDEA would effectively have the FBI actively working for the entertainment industry against file-sharers.
Now the House Judiciary intellectual property subcommittee, chaired by senator James Sensenbrenner Jr, another avid entertainment industry enthusiast, has passed it for debate in the full House.
The PDEA would impose criminal penalties on anyone who shares more than 1,000 “infringing files” on p2p networks.
File sharers found to be “infringing” could be jailed for up to three years.
“Tens of millions of Americans continue to use P2P networks,” says Fred von Lohmann, senior intellectual property attorney at the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation). “Turning college kids into criminals is not going to change that reality, any more than the 4,000 lawsuits against file sharing music fans has.
“This is a business problem, not a FBI problem.”
Below are the findings for HR 4077 as published here. The ’short’ findings are here.
There appears to be something missing at the end of SEC. 10 and SEC. 11 isn’t included, for some reason. So they’re both in full at the end of this.
Now read on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
H.R.4077
Piracy Deterrence and Education Act of 2004 (Introduced in House)
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds as follows:
(1) The Internet, while changing the way our society communicates, has also changed the nature of many crimes, including the theft of intellectual property.
(2) Trafficking in infringing copyrighted works through increasingly sophisticated electronic means, including peer-to-peer file trading networks, Internet chat rooms, and news groups, threatens lost jobs, lost income for creators, lower tax revenue, and higher prices for honest purchasers.
(3) The most popular peer-to-peer file trading software programs have been downloaded by computer users over 200,000,000 times. At any one time there are over 3,000,000 users simultaneously using just one of these services. Each month, on average, over 2,300,000,000 digital-media files are transferred among users of peer-to-peer systems.
(4) Many computer users simply believe that they will not be caught or prosecuted for their conduct.
(5) The security and privacy threats posed by certain peer-to-peer networks extend beyond users inadvertently enabling a hacker to access files. Millions of copies of one of the most popular peer-to-peer networks contain software that could allow an independent company to take over portions of users’ computers and Internet connections and has the capacity to keep track of users’ online habits.
(6) In light of these considerations, Federal law enforcement agencies should actively pursue criminals who steal the copyrighted works of others, and prevent such activity through enforcement and awareness. The public should be educated about the security and privacy risks associated with being connected to certain peer-to-peer networks.
SEC. 3. DETERRENCE AND COORDINATION.
(a) Program; Sharing of Information- The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in consultation with the Register of Copyrights, shall–
(1) develop a program based on providing of information and notice to deter members of the public from committing acts of copyright infringement through the Internet; and
(2) facilitate the sharing among law enforcement agencies, Internet service providers, and copyright owners of information concerning acts of copyright infringement described in paragraph (1).
The program under paragraph (1) shall include issuing appropriate warnings to individuals engaged in acts of copyright infringement described in paragraph (1) that they may be subject to criminal prosecution.
(b) Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to expand the investigative or enforcement powers of the Federal Bureau of Investigation nor to affect the duty, if any, of Internet service providers to monitor their service, affirmatively seek facts indicating infringing activity, or share private information about the users of their systems.
(c) Prohibition on Use of Certain Funds- The program created under subsection (a)(1) shall not use funds or resources of the Department of Justice allocated for criminal investigation or prosecution.
SEC. 4. DESIGNATION AND TRAINING OF AGENTS IN COMPUTER HACKING AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY UNITS.
(a) Designation of Agents in CHIPs Units- The Attorney General shall ensure that any unit in the Department of Justice responsible for investigating computer hacking or responsible for investigating intellectual property crimes is assigned at least one agent to support such unit for the purpose of investigating crimes relating to the theft of intellectual property.
(b) Training- The Attorney General shall ensure that each agent assigned under subsection (a) has received training in the investigation and enforcement of intellectual property crimes.
SEC. 5. EDUCATION PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment- There shall be established within the Office of the Associate Attorney General of the United States an Internet Use Education Program.
(b) Purpose- The purpose of the Internet Use Education Program shall be to–
(1) educate the general public concerning the value of copyrighted works and the effects of the theft of such works on those who create them; and
(2) educate the general public concerning the privacy, security, and other risks of using the Internet to obtain illegal copies of copyrighted works.
(c) Sector Specific Materials- The Internet Use Educational Program shall, to the extent appropriate, develop materials appropriate to Internet users in different sectors of the general public where criminal copyright infringement is a concern. The Attorney General shall consult with appropriate interested parties in developing such sector-specific materials.
(d) Consultations- The Attorney General shall consult with the Register of Copyrights and the Secretary of Commerce in developing the Internet Use Education Program under this section.
(e) Prohibition on Use of Certain Funds- The program created under this section shall not use funds or resources of the Department of Justice allocated for criminal investigation or prosecution.
SEC. 6. ACTIONS BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
Section 411(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended in the first sentence by striking `Except for’ and inserting `Except for an action brought by the Government of the United States or by any agency or instrumentality thereof, or’.
SEC. 7. AUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice for fiscal year 2005 not less than $15,000,000 for the investigation and prosecution of violations of title 17, United States Code.
SEC. 8. PREVENTION OF SURREPTITIOUS RECORDING IN MOTION PICTURE THEATERS.
(a) Short Title- This section may be cited as the `Artists’ Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2004′ or the `ART Act’.
(b) Criminal Penalties for Unauthorized Recording of Motion Pictures in a Motion Picture Theater-
(1) In general- Chapter 113 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 2319A the following new section:
`Sec. 2319B. Unauthorized recording of motion pictures in a motion picture theater
`(a) Offense- Whoever, without the authorization of the copyright owner, knowingly uses or attempts to use an audiovisual recording device in a motion picture theater to transmit or make a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work protected under title 17, or any part thereof, in a motion picture theater shall–
`(1) be imprisoned for not more than 3 years, fined under this title, or both; or
`(2) if the offense is a second or subsequent offense, be imprisoned for no more than 6 years, fined under this title, or both.
`(b) Forfeiture and Destruction- When a person is convicted of a violation of subsection (a), the court in its judgment of conviction shall, in addition to any penalty provided, order the forfeiture and destruction or other disposition of all unauthorized copies of motion pictures or other audiovisual works protected under title 17, or parts thereof, and any audiovisual recording devices or other equipment used in connection with the violation.
`(c) Authorized Activities- This section does not prevent any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or by a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State.
`(d) Victim Impact Statement-
`(1) In general- During the preparation of the presentence report pursuant to rule 32(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, victims of an offense under this section shall be permitted to submit to the probation officer a victim impact statement that identifies the victim of the offense and the extent and scope of the injury and loss suffered by the victim, including the estimated economic impact of the offense on that victim.
`(2) Contents- A victim impact statement submitted under this subsection shall include–
`(A) producers and sellers of legitimate works affected by conduct involved in the offense;
`(B) holders of intellectual property rights in the works described in subparagraph (A); and
`(C) the legal representatives of such producers, sellers, and holders.
`(e) Definitions- In this section:
`(1) Audiovisual work, copy, etc- The terms `audiovisual work’, `copy’, `copyright owner’, `motion picture’, and `transmit’ have, respectively, the meanings given those terms in section 101 of title 17.
`(2) Audiovisual recording device- The term `audiovisual recording device’ means a digital or analog photographic or video camera, or any other technology or device capable of enabling the recording or transmission of a copyrighted motion picture or other audiovisual work, or any part thereof, regardless of whether audiovisual recording is the sole or primary purpose of the device.
`(3) Motion picture theater- The term `motion picture theater’ means a movie theater, screening room, or other venue that is being used primarily for public performance of a motion picture.’.
(2) Conforming amendment- The table of sections for chapter 113 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2319A the following:
`2319B. Unauthorized recording of motion pictures in a motion picture theater.’.
SEC. 9. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON NEED TO TAKE STEPS TO PREVENT ILLEGAL ACTIVITY ON PEER-TO-PEER SERVICES.
(a) Findings- The Congress finds as follows:
(1) The most popular publicly accessible peer-to-peer file sharing software programs combined have been downloaded worldwide over 600,000,000 times.
(2) The vast majority of software products, including peer-to-peer technology, do not pose an inherent risk. Responsible persons making software products should be encouraged and commended for the due diligence and reasonable care they take including by providing instructions, relevant information in the documentation, disseminating patches, updates, and other appropriate modifications to the software.
(3) Massive volumes of illegal activity, including the distribution of child pornography, viruses, and confidential personal information, and copyright infringement occur on publicly accessible peer-to-peer file sharing services every day. Some publicly accessible peer-to-peer file sharing services expose consumers, particularly children, to serious risks, including legal liability, loss of privacy, threats to computer security, and exposure to illegal and inappropriate material.
(4) The following studies and reports demonstrate that pornography, including child pornography, is prevalent on publicly available peer-to-peer file sharing services, and children are regularly exposed to pornography when using publicly available peer-to-peer file-sharing services:
(A) A February 2004 report by the General Accounting Office (GAO) states that children using peer-to-peer file-sharing technology can be exposed inadvertently to pornographic content. When searching for popular terms like `Britney’, `Pokemon’, and `Olsen twins’, more than half the files retrieved were pornographic, including 8 percent containing child pornography or child erotica.
(B) The GAO also found that when searching the most popular peer-to-peer service for keywords known to be associated with child pornography, 42 percent of the returns (543 out of 1,286 files) were associated with images of child pornography.
(C) From 2001, when the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children began to track peer-to-peer child pornography, until 2002, the number of reported incidents increased over 400 percent–compared to an increase of less than 100 percent for chat rooms, less than 32 percent for websites, and no increase for news groups and bulletin boards.
(5) The full potential of peer-to-peer technology to benefit consumers has yet to be realized and will not be achieved until these problems are adequately addressed.
(6) To date, the businesses that run publicly accessible file-sharing services have refused or failed to voluntarily and sufficiently address these problems.
(7) Many users of publicly available peer-to-peer file-sharing services are drawn to these systems by the lure of obtaining `free’ music and movies.
(8) While some users use parental controls to protect children from pornography available on the Internet and search engines, not all such controls work on publicly accessible peer-to-peer networks.
(9) Businesses that run publicly accessible peer-to-peer file sharing services have openly acknowledged, and numerous studies and reports have established, that these services facilitate and profit from massive amounts of copyright infringement, causing enormous damage to the economic well-being of the copyright industries whose works are being illegally `shared’ and downloaded.
(10) The legitimate digital music marketplace offers consumers a wide and growing array of choices for obtaining music legally, without exposure to the risks posed by publicly accessible peer-to-peer file sharing services.
(11) The Federal Trade Commission issued a Consumer Alert in July of 2003 warning consumers that some file-sharing services contain damaging viruses and worms and, without the computer user’s knowledge or consent, install spyware to monitor a user’s browsing habits and send data to third parties or automatically open network connections.
(12) Publicly available peer-to-peer file-sharing services can and should adopt reasonable business practices and use technology in the marketplace to address the existing risks posed to consumers by their services and facilitate the legitimate use of peer-to-peer file sharing technology and software.
(b) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of the Congress that–
(1) responsible software developers should be commended, recognized, and encouraged for their efforts to protect consumers;
(2) currently the level of ongoing and persistent illegal and dangerous activity on publicly accessible peer-to-peer file sharing services is harmful to consumers, minors, and the economy; and
(3) therefore, the Congress and the executive branch should consider all appropriate measures to protect consumers and children, and prevent such illegal activity.
=====================
SEC. 10. ENHANCEMENT OF CRIMINAL COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
(a) Criminal Infringement- Section 506 of title 17, United States Code, is amended–
(1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
`(a) Criminal Infringement- Any person who–
`(1) infringes a copyright willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain,
`(2) infringes a copyright willfully by the reproduction or distribution, including by the offering for distribution to the public by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, or
`(3) infringes a copyright by the knowing distribution, including by the offering for distribution to the public by electronic means, with reckless disregard of the risk of further infringement, during any 180-day period, of–
`(A) 1,000 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works,
`(B) 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works with a total retail value of more than $10,000, or
`(C) 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted pre-release works,
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish the necessary level of intent under this subsection.’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(g) Definitions- In this section:
`(1) Pre-release work- The term `pre-release work’ refers to a work protected under this title which has a commercial and economic value and which, at the time of the infringement, the defendant knew or should have known that the work had not yet been made available by the copyright owner to individual members of the general public in copies or phonorecords for sale, license, or rental.
`(2) Retail value- The `retail value’ of a copyrighted work is the retail price of that work in the market in which it is sold. In the case of an infringement of a copyright by distribution, if the retail price does not adequately reflect the economic value of the infringement, then the retail value may be determined using other factors, including but not limited to suggested retail price, wholesale price, replacement cost of the item, licensing, or distribution-related fees.’.
(b) Penalties- Section 2319 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–
(1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections (e) and (f), respectively;
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
`(d) Any person who commits an offense under section 506(a)(3) of title 17–
`(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, or, if the offense was committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both; and
`(2) shall, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1), be imprisoned not more than 6 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, or, if the offense was committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both.’; and
(3) in subsection (f), as so redesignated–
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking `and’ after the semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting `; and’; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
`(3) the term `financial gain’ has the meaning given that term in section 101 (relating to definitions) of title 17.’.
(c) Civil Remedies for Infringement of a Commercial Pre-Release Copyrighted Work- Section 504(b) of title 17, United States Code, is amended–
(1) by striking `The copyright owner’ and inserting the following:
`(1) In general- The copyright owner’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(2) Damages for pre-release infringement-
`(A) In general- In the case of any pre-release work, actual damages shall be presumed conclusively to be no less than $10,000 per infringement, if a person–
`(i) distributes such work by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public; and
`(ii) knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
`(B) Definition- For purposes of this subsection, the term `pre-release work’ has the meaning given that term in section 506(g).’.
SEC. 11. AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES REGARDING THE INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS AND RELATED CRIMES.
(a) Amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines- Pursuant to its authority under section 994 of title 28, United States Code, and in accordance with this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall review and, if appropriate, amend the sentencing guidelines and policy statements applicable to persons convicted of intellectual property rights crimes, including sections 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, 2320 of title 18, United States Code, and sections 506, 1201, and 1202 of title 17, United States Code.
(b) Factors- In carrying out this section, the Sentencing Commission shall–
(1) take all appropriate measures to ensure that the sentencing guidelines and policy statements applicable to the offenses described in subsection (a) are sufficiently stringent to deter and adequately reflect the nature of such offenses;
(2) consider whether to provide a sentencing enhancement for those convicted of the offenses described in subsection (a) when the conduct involves the display, performance, publication, reproduction, or distribution of a copyrighted work before the time when the copyright owner has authorized the display, performance, publication, reproduction, or distribution of the original work, whether in the media format used by the infringing good or in any other media format;
(3) consider whether the definition of `uploading’ contained in Application Note 3 to Guideline 2B5.3 is adequate to address the loss attributable to people broadly distributing copyrighted works over the Internet without authorization; and
(4) consider whether the sentencing guidelines and policy statements applicable to the offenses described in subsection (a) adequately reflect any harm to victims from infringement in circumstances where law enforcement cannot determine how many times copyrighted material is reproduced or distributed.
(c) Promulgation- The Commission may promulgate the guidelines or amendments under this section in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 21(a) of the Sentencing Act of 1987, as though the authority under that Act had not expired.
September 10th, 2004 at 12:21 am
I Think They Wonderful People Behind The Push For This Bill Fail To Realize The Flaw In It’s Primary Mode Of It’s Subscription “To Protect Users From Unwanted Access And Security Hazards Through The Use Of Such P2P File Sharing Programs” And Also “To Prevent The Spread Of Computer Virus’”. Someone Should Bring It To The Attention Of Such People That Any 12 Year Old Child With Even Limited Access To A Computer Can More Than Accuratly Describe The Proper Precedure To FDISK A Hardrive (Format)… And Reinstall It’s Primary Operation System. Hah, Hell… I’d Go So Far To Say That It Isn’t The 45 Year Old Computer Hackers The Government Needs To Be Wary Of, It’s The 16 Year Old Kid Who Spends 4 Hours A Day Reading C++ Manuals And Researching The Everyday Methods By Which We Operate Our Internet Friendly Environment. My Point Here Is This: I For One, And Several Others I Assume, Simply Do Not Care. They Can Take All The Steps And Precautions They Wish, And That Will Still Not Damper My Use Of The P2P Networking System. Computer Virus’ Are An Easy Fix… I Have More Than One Computer, And All The Important, Sensitive, Top Secret Material That I Wouldn’t Want Anyone Using Is Stored On The One NOT CONNECTED To The Internet… Brilliant, I Know. While I Agree That Artists Should Recieve Credit And Or Funding For The Works That We Download, I Believe Their Needs To Be A More Current, And More In Depth Review Of How It Is ACTUALLY Impacting The Artist As A Whole. I’ve Downloaded Over 25,000 Files. Self Incrimination, Maybe… But If I Hear Something I Like, I Purchase The CD. I Have A CD Burner, I Also Own A DVD Burner, Of Course I Use Them–However The Majority Of Music That I End Up Listening To And Liking Is That Which, Under Normal Circumstances, I Would Have Not Heard Without The Assistance Of Such P2P Networking Programs. Thus, The Obscure Artists Whom Don’t Get The Radio Play Or MTV Time That Say, Britney Spears, Recieves Would Not Benefit From The Money That I Am Without A Doubt Spending For Their “Copywrited Intellectual Property”. Sales, Despite The P2P Network, Has Gone Up. Personally, And Perhaps A Little Extreme, I Believe People In Congress Are A Little Scared That The Youths Of The Nation Are Getting Smarter And More Advanced Than They Believe They Can Handle. Thus The Reason Behind Such An Avid Push For This Bill. This Is Not A Government Issue, We Are Not Trading Governmental Secrets To Some Hostile Country… If Anything, This Is A Business Problem… And Many Artists Have Handled It As Such, Releasing Portions Of Their Songs Onto These P2P Networks To Get Their Sound Out And Message Heard, And Including Breaks In The Song, Or Beeps, Bleeps, Buzzes, Hell–Anything To Insure It Isnt The Full Song. That’s Probably The Most Effective, And Best Step In Assuring The Artist Gets The Money They Deserve For Their Time And Effort. As Pointed Out Already, The 4000 Lawsuits They’ve Filed Against The College Kids DID NOT, I REPEAT, DID NOT DETER The Use Of These P2P Networks, And For Once–Someone In Congress Noticed That The Approach They Are Taking Is Way Off Base. Sorry For The Length Of This Post Everyone, Just Getting My Opinion Out There. If You Have Any Further Opinions, Let Them Be Known.
September 10th, 2004 at 3:23 am
how come I can record say a lord of the rings movie off of cable TV in much better picture most of the time, and thats alright. but if I download the same movie on the internet its a crime. and I pay as much for cable as I do for the internet.
September 11th, 2004 at 1:32 am
I think that they all need to get off their high horses and realize that we are going to share files until we die. Taking that right away is like trying to take instant messenges and email away. Why can they not understand that. T.Michael Wolfin05 This is no coward either!!!!!!!!!!!!!
September 11th, 2004 at 1:58 am
You tell ‘em Fred. I for one am quite tired of seeing pressure on P2P by lining pockets of those in power. Are we really that corrupt in the USA? Guess so.
~G
September 11th, 2004 at 9:41 am
Setting forth to discredit Internet Users is a patent infringment whether it involves uploads or downloads or any matter associate of a Copyright Matter. As is posted by most copyright organizer suppliers is their own interpretation and not that of either the artist or the artist foundation so the rights clause is a falacy first and foremost protecting only dealers at large that sell their products as quality downloads. Accessing their products require special appended features they are glad to share with anyones computer at anytime the internet user signifies for their servers to accommidate a request. There are no individuals that wrongfully desire to use those methods to attain a copyright matter that they may have a interest in, rather than go that route they choose to share files with other Internet individuals also sharing files. P2P is one method to share files and is nothing shorter than a propagation to enrich either of their needs, nothing short of copyright infringment is being exemplified herewith since they are not connected to any offer from dealers selling their high quality products, programs create specific matters from copyright materials, some can do it effectively while others such as notepad in Microsoft Products cannot even read a Microsoft News Page correctly because Microsoft supposrt characterization that is not supported in notepad nor wordpad for that matter of copyright infringement Microsoft is making the offer of a news article and forcing people that do wish to copy/paste and store to store erronous text, some of which will not store fashionably becaue of lack of character support (ordinary ASCII Text matter is copyrightable). The Microsoft claims of copyright and any other factoion is creating a falsehood of characterization where black upright rectangles are replacing ordinary ASCII Text and that infringes the copyrightwhere Microsoft sold their product to copy/paste and store text matter on the HDs this material they broadcast is a illegal factor regarding their HTML or otherwise definition of the copyright matter which is not greater than ASCII in real copyright format. Since Microsoft now others supplies images of a page derived matter of copyright they claim none of the material Microsoft has falls into the realm of copyright legalities so Internet Individuals wishing to claim copyright to a captured image that has been enhanced by cloning together many images somewhat like stiching them together has not infringed a copyright even if the originator of copyright matter has broadcast the information in a foreign text matter that is not supported by the programming they sell or otherwise distribute which also is a copyright matter but is more-so a patent issue than a copyright issue. Music is a general audio issue to those whom experience it having specific support players to enhance the quality or deminish the size of such music audio. If it were a general issue that demanded all Internet individuals to comply to copyright standards it would be saying that they as well as distributors have to submit to copyright constrictions and claim copyright in matters they not only share but also would distribute from their websites or on servers that provide support for uploading and downloading such things as a very small audio sample might be the worst demanded copyright issue yet to be complied to since artists do not supply samples of their works as copyright matters its not their liability as such since they are not distributing a short of a music file. Distributors copyright marks are signifying only one thing they have published something to the masses and as proof they must show their copyright legal signature. Nothing short coming of legal signatures are being mandated by a administration seeking to claim a infringement of copyright before the fact exists and if there were a certificate it would not be one generated by a artist but generated by a sales distributor without recourse of changing a supported Java Base that makes their services adequate for only them. Java has nothing to do with copywriters whom fail to create a legal signature that is distributed with a copyright product, infringement occurs when anyone else obtaining such from a dealer would boast claim on a website that its geniune content not associated with any Internet Domain whihc is not a copyright issue until it has been written into ownership, nothing pertaining to that database is copyright issue and therefore many large corporates employ a series of servers which are not within the copyright issue as well to supply information as well as the copyright products they sell online, while some super large corporates branch their operations in other nations to break-in servers that do not even have support in the USA for use in the USA and utilize English particulars as a scam evolves to protect their rights abroad (THE COPYRIGHT ISSUE IN ITS FULLNESS). Window Java is not Adobe Java and Adobe Documentation has come a long way to offer music lovers opportunity that dealers are not associated inre of pertaining not only to music but also pictures and videos in PDF documents. It is a opportunity for those whom desire that production of a pdf file presentation without respect to what a mp3 or wave file is or bmp or jpg image file having supported players and options to activate preferences, if’n a dealer generated the pdf file the individual is left in the dark to make corrections to it and cannot open a (ASCII Text File) using Adobe and Adobe has no spell checker for (ASCII Text).
A primary example may be a claim of copyright by lets say a University in Iraq and sells to students music online setup to appear legit but in truthfulness a patent issue exists that endorses a foreign supplier to handle the transfers of the music nothing coming out of Iraq whatsoever lets say Great Britian whom in turn has received exclusive protect contracts from artists gullible enough to hand over a set of music scripts which are nothing short of English by far worse written in a music scale. The seller has communicated a complete product will be received and the suppliers distributor supplies only what he has created from those music scales, not the artist. The artists are gullible enough to go along with the music dealership scams and the administrations in many nations are gullible enough to allow artists to front the works to others to acomplish thus calling that a copyright matter which is being claimed by the dealers to be infringeable and some claim infringement by those whom purchase it and change it to their correct standard (ASCII TEXT) where the artists stand in the creation of the music scale from the beginning of copyrightable time b ut nothing generated a signature showing the artists are not the originators of what is being sold and distributed and the only legal issue is infringement of a dealers organized method. Its the dealer that is benefiting from the issue of infringement and sharers do not even fit into the same criteria, in fact what they receive in WYSIWYG has not infringed any supplier either.
If Microsoft ever changes notepad to support the character text matters that copy/paste to and from the notepad equally the same no matter how many times its done then Microsoft might have a legal copyright to claim but its the patents fault that serves the materials to Internet individuals that find it necessary to not only read but to stor as well for comparison in issues that occure later on down the road. The same is true in music, bands cease to produce a variety of genre and another band will generate a new genre with entirely the same wordings but different tunes and it might come over as a hit while the original artists that created the tune failed to attain a hit from it because of the genre, hip-hop music and rapper music is somewhat more attune to generating a similar worded tune with different music accompaniments and attaining a hit faster than a country musician or a orchestra big time band. Placing restrictions on music does not comply to patent usage because in a free world democracy monopolizing product supply and demand is illegal. Anyonme such as John Kerry that monopolizes Vietnam for his own use during a 4 month tour of duty that could have involved 1.9 months getting there and 1.9 months getting back and only .2 months of actually being where he is stating he was at in Vietnam. The dealer in this issue is John Kerry and he has no answers otherthan a compliance to a 2-year college degree the V.P. has is better than a 4-month tour of duty and allowing the people to vote on that issue regardless of whether it is a issue a President might have to comply to. Kerry is simply monopolizing the truth too generate votes for his win in the election, using a few words in copyright issue to claim a higher position. Theres nothing to a election process of candidates seeking higher recognition from each other being construed as a copyright infringement, the books are just being published as such to comply to whats being said and shown, or as close to as is possible and in John Kerry’s issue far from the actual events and comrades or there would have been a few arrests supporting claims to facts by administrators claiming (ANTI-P2P ‘FBI’ BILL). 100 year patent organizers know what happened to John Kerry and whats happened to George Bush is past documentation, nothing to the necessity of The Office of Presidency and certainly not complying to copyright sharing and certificate issuances bearing signatures of the dealers responsible of the claims of copyright. A dealer can set forth a single copyright document and it be useful for the duration of copyright pertaining to the matters which are supporting the claim to copyright afforded by everyone accommidating the dealer so the dealer can construe another when the time arives to attain another backup extension of copyright. Supporting dealers propositions is not securing the government anymore money than if the dealer had fifty extensions already behind him. The extension is for the dealer not every single artist because ever artist is a supporter of the dealer if so and certainly does not pertain to the matters the dealers have afforded others to generate products from items submittted by artists which could be massive printed covers without glued cardboard sheeting so to be capable to add something to the jacket sleeve before it is plastic wrapped like a supported dealer logo or sale criteria or fund raiser activity location scoop. Adminstrators have failed to realize the truth in lending act, Americans are being lied to up their snoots. Find some time to investigate more into whom is supplying Kerry with arms to counter terrorist attackers besides the ‘FBI’ they come as a freebee for candidates.
[posted as Anonymous]
Peace for followers of P2P at Large.
Saturday, 11 September, 2004
03:29:03 AM
September 11th, 2004 at 10:26 am
This bill sucks
September 12th, 2004 at 3:40 am
congress will pass it because most college kids dont vote. If they were a major voting block then most politicians would reconsider voting for it.
Does anyone realize how much it would cost the government to prosecute all of us? Two words:COURT FEES.
September 12th, 2004 at 6:04 am
I agree. ^__^ I agree with everyone. I guess I’m just that nice! =D
September 18th, 2004 at 6:19 pm
Thanks for pointing out what I’ve known is obvious in your post, GuidoZ. I’ve been doing a lot of reading and it seems to me that our current government and administration are doing everthing they can in the favor of big business, whether it be entertainment, commerce, or of course oil.
There’s only one thing that can be done to change things– I’m sure most of the readers here are college students, so you know what you have to do. (1) Write to your Congressperson, and (2) Vote. That’s all we can hope to do about this— And I encourage you all to do both.
—Khabi