Congress mulls prison terms for KaZaA users

The Register ^ | Posted: 17/07/2003 at 12:40 GMT | By Thomas C Greene in Washington

[MarkL]

Look, let's just get it over with... If you download a copyrighted song, the penalty should be to put that person to death, confiscate all his or her property, then sell the person's entire family into indentured servitude for not less than 8 generations... What's the problem?

Mark

[MarkL]

Amazing! We have the resources to go after people who have downloaded one song. Yet no one is lifting a finger in deporting the terrorists/rapist/illegal aliens.

Come on now... We have to go after those who are the greatest threat to society... It's for "the children," don't ya know!

Mark

[BenR2]

Our LORD said something about swallowing the camel and straining at the gnat.

The camel would be illegal immigration and gun control; the gnat would be file sharing. (IMHO.)

[Clinging Bitterly]

>>"I'm all for destroying their machines," Hatch said...

Yeah whatever. We don't need Hatch for that. Anybody stupid enough to download that peice of trashware KaZaa gets what they deserve. My girls learned. The downloaded it on their computer and it is now a doorstop.

[xrp]

YES! Let's imprison even MORE non-violent criminals! Most of the people downloading songs are teens-mid 30s. Just hook them up with tons of community service cleaning cigarette butts along the side of the road and the word will get out.

[proudofthesouth]

I'm amazed that they are only going after downloading music from computers. What about people who sell CD's at garage sales or flea markets? Or another trend: Used book stores or (again) people who sell books at garage sales. All of this is copyrighted material and artists don't get paid of their material is sold second hand.

[jwh_Denver]

Yet no one is lifting a finger in deporting the terrorists/rapist/illegal aliens.

Tain't no money in that.

Just wonderful. Now we have Congress chimps going after someone who downloads an MP3. Wants to destroy our computers?

[xrp]

I agree. I'm torn on this issue somewhat. I despise the RIAA and the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America). However, I do believe that the downloading will force the MPAA (Hollywood) and the RIAA more accountable to their customer base. Too many times I've bought a CD and had only 1 or 2 songs on the 16 track CD ($15+) be any good. Same with movies. It used to be about 1 out of every 4 movies I went to was worth the money I paid to see it. Now the customer base gets to preview the product. If they don't like the products, they don't buy it. If they like the products, they are morally obligated to purchase the product. If they don't...well that is where my problem with the consumer/downloader is.

You can't exactly return a movie after you've gone to the theater. Also...try returning an open CD, DVD or VHS. Not even Wal-Mart will allow you to do that.

[eno_]

If they like the products, they are morally obligated to purchase the product. If they don't...well that is where my problem with the consumer/downloader is.

There isn't just one type of consumer downloader. The most avid downloaders are almost always avid consumers of CDs, DVDs, etc. The "casual" downloaders are not economically significant.

Plus there is a price-based solution: If a service like the Apple iTunes store were priced at $0.05 per cut, rather than $0.99 per cut, I'd rather download a quality digital recording than a rip of unknown quality.

Consider the cost of producing a record versus the cost of producing a major movie. The price of music recordings could fall pretty far and still be profitable relative to costs.

[LanPB01]

I'm all for destroying Hatch's personal property anytime I feel he votes for legislation that steals from the producers of society and hands it to the bums.

[Vigilantcitizen]

On another thread, poster lelio came up with an excellent model that the RIAA should try.

Have kiosks in malls and such that a consumer can go to, pick individual songs at $1.00 per, and have those ripped on a blank c.d. An average c.d. of 15 songs will still bring the desired $15.00 price range for the sellers.

[MarkL]

I'm amazed that they are only going after downloading music from computers. What about people who sell CD's at garage sales or flea markets? Or another trend: Used book stores or (again) people who sell books at garage sales. All of this is copyrighted material and artists don't get paid of their material is sold second hand.

No, this has already been resolved by the courts for a very long time. The courts recognize that the intellectual property of the book, record, CD, computer software/game, etc is owned by the artist, company, etc... When you "purchase" a book, record, et all, you're actually only licensing the use of the content for yourself. You never actually "own" it. When you resell the object, you're simply transfering the license to someone else, since you lose access to the content. Of course, if you were to make a copy of it for yourself and then sell the original, you are breaking the rules/law.

But the reason this was resolved was because the record industry did try to put used record stores out of business a long time ago...

Mark

[eno_]

The problem is that the pricing is wrong.

DVDs cost about the same as CDs. That's f-ed up!

People used to steal phone service. Now long distance is free with your mobile phone service, or $0.019 (that's 1.9 cents) per minute on a calling card. "Toll fraud" in domestic long distance is now economically insignificant because prices are so low.

The only solution to downloading that will work is for music prices to drop to where it's too cheap to steal.

[undergroundwarrior]

Millions of people are downloading files. Will the R.I.A.A. be satisfied and given blanket indictments of millions of people?

Who will be prosecuted? "Ememies", "undesirables", "activists"?

Will a person have to be indicted by a grand jury?

Will a person a right to trial before jury of his / her peers?

[Vigilantcitizen]

"DVDs cost about the same as CDs. That's f-ed up!"

I agree. I'm no economics major, but IMHO, the whole issue boils down to the RIAA not wanting to dump a business model made obsolete by technology. Instead of adapting to this new technology, they are spending billions trying to fight the laws of the free market. That's a battle they will not win.

The RIAA could easily follow the example of Itunes and set up a profitable way for people to download music at a price. But they refuse, at their own peril.

[Kozak]

Gee, I wonder how hard it would be for smart hacker to spoof the old congressman and make it look like he was trading files, maybe some kiddie porn? Just a thought.

[longtermmemmory]

no you are mistaken. Soley on the issue of the garage sale. If you sell the original CD you are selling the rights associated with it.

The same body of laws said it was legal to sell used CD's and no "new CD" record stores could not prohibit a used CD store from opening next door. You did not write that the record stores lost big time and even had to pay off the counter suite for restraint of trade. (no different that the MPAA objecting to the dual VCR from go video or the RIAA objecting to high speed cd to cassette boom boxes.)

Despite what the adhesion contract says on the box. You OWN the cd and its contents. (The same BS was previously attempted with software. I bought it and it is mine, I give the entire disk and box away and cease using the program, it is the new owners.) The courts view forced contract terms between a choiceless consumer differently than between a merchants. (believe me ucc 2-207 has been causing headaches for decades and will continue to do so)

remember I am writing when you sell the original CD at a garage sale, or used cd store. The object is physical property. The courts have treated the physical property and the intelectual property contained as a single object. (regarless of copyright)

[palmer]

priced at $0.05 per cut, rather than $0.99 per cut

Chicken and egg. The 99 cent price factors in swapping. If most people downloaded rather than swapped, the price could be a nickel. But unfortunately the music cartel will make sure to kill the chicken to get a couple of extra eggs.

[proud American in Canada]

"Look, let's just get it over with... If you download a copyrighted song, the penalty should be to put that person to death, confiscate all his or her property, then sell the person's entire family into indentured servitude for not less than 8 generations... What's the problem?


absolutely! My only problem with your suggestion is that it may not be tough enough. ;)

[SSN558]

priced at $0.05 per cut, rather than $0.99 per cut

Behind every law purchased by a special interest group is an unintended consequence. For us dial up folks it is just not practical to download music or DVD's, takes too long. Similiary, the high speed internet marketing end of the business relies on the need for speed of music and DVD downloads to sell their product. If and when the downloading of music and DVD's becomes punishable, high speed internet access will no longer be a necessity for millions of current suscribers. bad solution.