Posted on 08/21/2002 10:34:16 AM PDT by Leroy S. Mort
ASPEN, Colo.--The U.S. Department of Justice is prepared to begin prosecuting peer-to-peer pirates, a top government official said on Tuesday.
John Malcolm, a deputy assistant attorney general, said Americans should realize that swapping illicit copies of music and movies is a criminal offense that can result in lengthy prison terms.
"A lot of people think these activities are legal, and they think they ought to be legal," Malcolm told an audience at the Progress and Freedom Foundation’s annual technology and politics summit.
Malcolm said the Internet has become "the world's largest copy machine" and that criminal prosecutions of copyright offenders are now necessary to preserve the viability of America's content industries. "There does have to be some kind of a public message that stealing is stealing is stealing," said Malcolm, who oversees the arm of the Justice Department that prosecutes copyright and computer crime cases.
In an interview, Malcolm would not say when prosecutions would begin. The response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks temporarily diverted the department's resources and prevented its attorneys from focusing on this earlier, he said.
A few weeks ago, some of the most senior members of Congress pressured the Justice Department to invoke a little-known law, the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act, against peer-to-peer users who swap files without permission.
Under the NET Act, signed by President Clinton in 1997, it is a federal crime to share copies of copyrighted products such as software, movies or music with anyone, even friends or family members, if the value of the work exceeds $1,000. Violations are punishable by one year in prison, or if the value tops $2,500, "not more than five years" in prison.
Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), said his industry would "welcome" prosecutions that send a message to song-swappers.
"Some prosecutions that make that clear could be very helpful...I think they would think twice if they thought there was a risk of criminal prosecution," said Sherman, who was on the same conference panel.
Christopher Cookson, executive vice president of Warner Bros. and another panelist, said there was "a need for governments to step in and maintain order in society."
Swapping files in violation of the law has always been a civil offense, and the RIAA and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) have the option of suing individual infringers and seeking damages.
But, Malcolm said, criminal prosecutions can be much more effective in intimidating file-swappers who have little assets at risk in a civil suit. "Civil remedies are not adequate...Law enforcement in that regard does have several advantages," Malcolm said. "We have the advantage, when appropriate, of opening up and conducting multi-jurisdictional and international investigations.
"Most parents would be horrified if they walked into a child's room and found 100 stolen CDs...However, these same parents think nothing of having their children spend time online downloading hundreds of songs without paying a dime."
Gary Shapiro, president of the Consumer Electronics Association, said he was skeptical about the view that peer-to-peer piracy should be a criminal offense. "If we have 70 million people in the United States who are breaking the law, we have a big issue."
The DOJ already has used the NET Act to imprison noncommercial software pirates, which software lobbyists hailed as "an important component of the overall effort to prevent software theft."
During his confirmation hearing in June 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft told Congress that "given the fact that much of America's strength in the world economy is a result of our being the developer and promoter of most of the valuable software, we cannot allow the assets that are held electronically to be pirated or infringed. And so we will make a priority of cybercrime issues."
The letter from Congress complains of "a staggering increase in the amount of intellectual property pirated over the Internet through peer-to-peer systems." Signed by 19 members of Congress, including Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Ca., the letter urged Ashcroft "to prosecute individuals who intentionally allow mass copying from their computer over peer-to-peer networks."
You own a piece of plastic that contains copyrighted material. You do not own the copyright. If you make copies and sell them, that is against the law and is no different than theft in the eyes of the law. Is that so hard to understand?
I think your view of capitalism is being skewed by your own desire to download music without paying for it. You're framing this in a purely tangible/physical property view and that's not accurate. It's also conveniently simplistic.
Let me give you an analogy. Currently, there are a handful of politicians who favor mandating free commercial airtime from broadcasters for campaign ads. A broadcaster's product is airtime. That's not physical or tangible but nonetheless, he has a capital interest in selling his airtime. If someone passes a law saying he can't sell it but must give it away, that's money he's losing and it's also a violation of what most people would consider basic fairness.
Do you agree or disagree that he should be compelled to give away his product for free? How is this any different than record companies being forced to give away their product for free (not by statute, but de facto by unconstrained internet downloading)?
You just said it right there. The record companies are not being forced to give away their product for free by statute. They are simply being outwitted by people using new, privately owned technology.
You wish! So now you're a monarch who can issue unilateral proclamations on what the law is? Sorry, you're not and the law says otherwise, stickyfingers!
Excellent..........quote of the day stuff fer sure !!
Stay Safe !
TD has been a trooper, and hasn't resorted to attacks. Well done, madam or sir. However, I have to take Soren to task for the "guilty conscience" line. I don't feel a bit of guilt for PTP copying. I've recorded music off of the radio onto cassettes for years, and made free copies for my family. I've recorded movies and TV shows for them, too. I did not pay a dime to watch or listen to the originals, and I did not feel a bit of guilt for recording them for myself or others. No one has ever suggested that I broke any laws, or deprived anyone of their property rights. Suddenly, I just might be guilty of federal crime violations for PTP copies... why? How is this any different than what Americans have done with broadcast media for decades?
There is no "guily conscience" because we've recorded for years, and these legal products (VCR's, casette recorders, PC CDRW drives, etc) are designed to be used as we are using them. Why do you think that we would feel any guilt for using our expensive and legal electronic equipment in the exact way it was designed to be used?
I have to agree with Lower55, "If they don't want us to hear it, don't put it on the radio. If they give it to me in my home or car, it's mine to copy. I may want to hear it again on my terms, at the time I decide." If it really must come down to it, we just might have to say that we're recording the sounds of our own homes, and our favorite music just happens to be playing very prevalently in the background, and then we're just making those recordings of our own homes available to our friends on the internet. Will that make everything better?
In your profile, you wrote:
I don't endorse drug use, but also do not believe it's wise policy to destroy the life of a young person by branding them a criminal for simple possession of marijuana.
So you think it's wise policy to arrest kids downloading copies of music so they don't have to buy it? Yes, it's stealing, but is it wise policy to destroy the life of a young person by branding them a criminal for simple stealing of music via downloading?
Let's refocus what the original article is about, ok? I think you make a good point about it being wrong, illegal even, but can we not agree that criminal prosecution of individual downloaders is overboard? Even as it is for marajuana smokers? I certainly do. I only ask you to show some equivelancy vis-a-vis young marajuana smokers and music downloaders.
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.