File sharing vs manslaughter
p2p news / p2pnet: Hollywood enthusiast Lamar Smith is front and centre with a new bill designed to, "expand the DMCA’s restrictions on software that can bypass copy protections and grant federal police more wiretapping and enforcement powers".
Professor Ed Felten points out that under it, copyright infringers would also face penalties similar to those already in force for manslaughter, sexual abuse and racketeering/extortion, to name but three federal crimes.
. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
U.S. Copyright May Get Harsher and Broader
By Ed Felten – Freedom to Tinker
Rep. Lamar Smith is preparing to introduce a bill in Congress that would increase penalties for copyright infringement and broaden the scope of the DMCA and other copyright laws, according to a news.com story. (The story seems to get some details of the bill wrong, so be sure to look at the bill itself before drawing conclusions.)
The bill would increase penalties for small-scale, noncommercial copyright infringement beyond even their current excessive levels. For example, noncommercial distribution of copyrighted material worth $2500 or more would carry a maximum sentence of ten years in Federal prison. Even attempting to commit that level of infringment would potentially carry a ten-year sentence. That’s the same maximum sentenced faced by bribe-taking Congressman Duke Cunningham, whose corruption probably cost taxpayers millions of dollars. It’s also less than the average Federal sentence for manslaughter (33 months), sexual abuse (73 months), arson (87 months), fraud (14 months), embezzlement (7 months), bribery (10 months), or racketeering/extortion (72 months).
The bill would also expand the scope of copyright in several respects. Most interesting to readers here is an expansion of the DMCA’s anticircumvention rules.
Recall that Section 1201 of the DMCA bans circumvention of technical protection mechanisms (TPMs), and also bans trafficking in circumvention devices. The Smith bill would expand the trafficking ban, by redefining “trafficking” as follows:
[T]he term ‘traffic in’ means to transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, or to make, import, export, obtain control of, or possess, with intent to so transport, transfer, or dispose of.
In short, where the law now bans distribution of a circumvention device, the bill would also ban possession of a circumvention device with intent to distribute it.
This bill, if passed, would probably increase the DMCA’s chilling effect on research. Currently, a researcher can steer clear of the trafficking provision by keeping any circumvention devices to himself, using those devices himself (lawfully) in the lab. If the Smith bill passes, the researcher would have to worry that a plaintiff or prosecutor will misjudge his intent and bring a case, and that a judge or jury might be convinced that the researcher was eventually planning to distribute the device. Even if the claim of bad intent is baseless, refuting it will be slow, painful, and expensive.
I’m eager to hear the rationale for these expansions. But I wouldn’t be surprised if no rationale is offered, beyond the standard “piracy is bad” mantra or vague claims to be “rationalizing” the statute.
Also See:
filesplit – NZBzone Alternatives, April 24, 2006
front and centre – New bill would boost DMCA, April 24, 2006
April 25th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
“Iâm eager to hear the rationale for these expansions. But I wouldnât be surprised if no rationale is offered, beyond the standard âpiracy is badâ mantra or vague claims to be ârationalizingâ the statute.”
Ed,Ed,Ed
The rational is the same as for most laws these days:
’cause it was bought and paid for.
Your obviously one of those silly liberal types that think politicians are suppose to act in their constituents best interest. I mean come on most constituents couldnât afford to bribe (opps, I meant lobby) politicians as they have come accustom to.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
One has to wonder: will the next Marc Emery be someone from the file-sharing community?
Under terms of the MLAT (Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty) the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) succeeded in having Marc Emery arrested for violating U.S. law; he now potentially faces extradition to the United States, where he is likely to be sentenced to decades in jail.
By contrast, here in Canada, Emery has been arrested multiple times, fined once or twice, and spent a few days in jail.
Should this egregious and over-the-top legislation actually see the light of day, one wonders if the next organization to try to use the MLAT will the the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) acting on behalf of the entertainment cartels?
Will the next Marc Emery be someone from the file-sharing community?
April 25th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
The current DMCA proposal change are to restrictive in fact they should be toned down not up, the corporations that are pushing this is foreign owned companies, the constitution begins with WE THE PEOPLE, I feel the goverment has sold it’s soul to corporate america and the people do not count any more. Copyright laws have been turned into a black sludge by special interest,a monopoly and that happened with the help from washington.
I pray ever day that the U.S. Goverment grows up some day and starts doing the job it was created for, taking care of its individuals
rights. The founding fathers of this country gave us the guide lines, we have been lead off course.
April 25th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
Dream on.
April 27th, 2006 at 1:19 am
Am I missing something or does the original post on Freedom to Tinker say:
“Itâs also more than the average Federal sentence for manslaughter ”
where as the post on p2pnet says:
“Itâs also less than the average Federal sentence for manslaughter”
cheers