Posted on 04/21/2005 3:55:38 AM PDT by soccer_linux_mozilla
A new bill that would imprison pre-release file pirates for up to three years is just a few procedural steps away from becoming law.
The bill, known as the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, which includes the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2005 or the ART Act, was crafted to sentence distributors of prerelease copies of films, songs or other works for up to three years. The bill also would permit companies like ClearPlay to edit films for language and content.
The bill, which is awaiting signature from President Bush, would assign the same penalties to users who trade prerelease works as others who violate copyright law. Under Section 506(a) of Title 17 of the U.S. Code, individuals who "during any 180-day period, [trade] 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000" may be imprisoned for up to three years, or six years for a second offense.
(Excerpt) Read more at drudgereport.com ...
I can just envision the day when murderers, armed robbers, pedophiles and rapists all walk the streets free, while "file pirates" occupy the jail cells in our overcrowded prisons.
I have little sympathy for people that pirate other people's property.
Remember the rule of Unintended Consequences. This law would apply to copyrighted works as well as music. It could be applied against Free Republic when someone posts an article from a copyrighted source. So far, legally, our application of the fair use clause stands at 0-1.
That means that the "artist" cannot, as a practical matter, defend his rights. Consequently he or she must "sell out" to a large media marketing firm.
The laws, BTW, are written specifically to benefit those "marketing firms" and not artists.
Consequently, I'd have to agree with what you said, to wit: "I have little sympathy for people that pirate other people's property. but I'm afraid I'd be targeting the very people who will benefit from this new revision to the same law that allows them to pirate other people's property.
You must pay royalties on Ringtones for your cellphone.
While we're at it, did you ever build a model airplane or car? Well, they want royalties now too. You will have to pay $50.00 or so for a plastic model airplane for your kids...
I can imagine the same day. That said; the filesharing they are talking about is thievery and deserves punishment.
And if file sharers also were caught using sports enhancing substances like andro or ephedra, they should get life sentences. (/sarc)
Of course. But the article made me think that we've perhaps lost a sense of perspective about things.
I get a laugh out of the crap these people put out and call themselves "Artists". I love it when they are cheated out of money to buy dope and give to liberal causes..
That said I would not copy their files because they arent worth the effort. Most of those cheating these so called "artists" are the ones who these" artists" are making their money off of. Thats kind of a poetic justice.
When I want a Jones tape I go out and buy it , but tapes are getting hard to find. LOL. Nothing out there but CD's now. Funny : people have been copying tapes for years and no complaining , now they Complain all the time CD's are being copied.
So the INDUCE Act struck out and this is Hollywood's latest tyrannical bill they are pushing.
(sarcasm) Then they should start with the tax-collectors.
I can fully envision such a day as you described. Along with it the day will come where you can't even HUM a tune without being charged with a crime for "public performance without a permit" and "failure to pay a licensing fee."
Well, what if it is a US Navy ship or aircraft? I'm a taxpayer, I helped pay for its construction so why should I pay royalties on that? I could see autos/planes created by corporate entities but not governments.
Then perhaps we should give file sharers the death penalty. After all, the punishment doesn't have to fit the crime.</sarcasm>
This could create interesting international issues. Other countries have copyright periods that expire before the ones in the US. Is it illegal to buy or download song files from international sources that are legal in their own countries? Once we start talking about jail time, it gets a lot more serious. Even though this law in particular doesn't speak to that issue, I can see it heading there.
Actually, those ships and aircraft are designed by private corporations and compete for military contracts. Thus the gov't, and taxpayer, are only getting the item produced under the contract and not intellectual rights the unless it's otherwise been specified in the contracts. Thus the gov't couldn't decide that they like the Lockeed F-117 a lot but want Boeing to build them instead to cut costs.
No doubt some lawyers will take a run at sites like FR using this angle. I can envision a time where you'll need to do a click-through license just to see an article and that license will contain draconian provisions wherein just by reading the piece you will agree to abandon fair use, any ability to summarize, restate, comment upon and so forth under penalty of punishment to be decided by a tribuneral made up of DemUndies.
Efforts to censor intellectual discourse and control information are alive and well in 2005. You can see it from those who demand changes by the new Pope of the Catholic Church which would violate the religions own doctrine! They want to oppress that Faith rather than take up one that holds the views they do. Much is done to make sure consumers get as little information as possible. Any efforts to go around the gatekeeper (even if it results in an increase in sales) will result in severe consequences. Market's are kept rigid thus Europe gets B-sides the Americas don't. America might get extra footage that Aussies don't. Want the B-sides of your favorite artist? Be prepared to pay double album cd pricing for an "import" cd single with 3 songs. They don't care about the artist or the artist's fans. They want 19th century monopolistic control in the 21st century.
How about Federal enforcement on the border and our immigration laws before we get to HollyWeird's agenda. I'll bet HollyWeird really spreads the money around thick in Washington DC
Actually, this happens all the time under "second source" contracts. Once the government pays the primary contractor for the research and development of a weapons system, it is the government's to do with as they wish. Thus, the government can give the full plans, specifications, manufacturing techniques, etc. to another contractors to build the same weapon system.
This, of course, is often used to "keep costs in line" by establishing a competing supplier.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.