DOJ to Prosecute File Swappers

Special to ZDNet News ^ | August 20, 2002, 2:27 PM PT | Declan McCullagh

[Revolting cat!]

some so-called conservatives have a chilling predisposition toward fascism.

Or statism, to say the least.

[Chad Fairbanks]

My out-of-pocket expenses for books will never dwindle to zero... :0)

[aruanan]

... by the reproduction or distribution, including 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, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18. ...

No, he got it right. He just wasn't so wordy or as ambiguous as the above. "which" in the above refers either to the copy or to that which is copied. There are very, very few things to be copied that have a greater than $1000 retail value per unit.

[Lord Basil]

Funny. For a minute there, I thought the subject was FBI files.

[MarkL]

I guess if I purchase something and give it away to you for free, and you 'take' it, then you are "stealing". Forget the fact that I did not make any profit from it.

Seems like the folks that luvvvvvv Govt intervention, just can't get enough of it!

Well, if you buy a loaf of bread, and you give it away, that's nice of you... If you buy a loaf of bread, and share it with someone else, that's nice of you too.

If you buy a loaf of bread, and steal a loaf at the same time, is it OK to give away that second loaf, since you are not making a profit on it?

While I'm 100% against this looney law, in the case of music, you're paying for the music itself, NOT the media it's recorded on... You are in effect, stealing the "content." On the other hand, if you buy a CD, and then give it to a friend, no law's been broken, since you haven't "diluted" the content. You can even sell it, although I do believe that the record industry attempted to stop "used record stores" a number of years ago... This law is simply to ensure that as much money goes into the record industry as possible! When a song is played on the radio or tv, a royalty is paid to the record company. When ever a blank cassette or CD is sold, a royalty is payed to the recording industry. So they are getting their money... They just don't feel it's enough.

But don't kid yourself... If you copy someone elses work, and don't pay for it, you ARE stealing it...

Mark

[Cacique]

phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000

Almost all copyrighted works fall under that category, the total retail value would depend on the number of copyrighted copies out there. In most cases at $9.99 a pop fi a record sold more than 101 copies it falls under the category of the law. The total value is not each individual copy but the total retail revenue generated by legitimate copies of the original work.

[MarkL]

I wonder if it would be considered "stealing" if a person recorded a song that was playing on the radio?

The courts did rule on this one, when many of the AOR (album oriented rock) radio stations began playing entire albums late at night (Do any Kansas Citians remember Vaughn Mack, on KYYS all those years ago?). Since the record company got royalties paid via ASCAP and BMI, and there's a tax on all blank casettes, the answer is no, provided that it's for personal use only. However, if you start duplicating it, then it is stealing.

Mark

[Maximum Leader]

My theory is that John Ashcroft won't be happy until everyone from every point of the ideological spectrum is pissed off at him.

Basically the recording industry has the Justice Dept. on retainer as its commercial litigator. I can't believe Ashcroft and his minions are spending 5 minutes on this issue.

[MarkL]

I'm thinking Jesus would be arrested if he were around today for copying all those loaves of bread and fish. Wasn't he stealing from the bakeries and fishermen? Serious question.

Nope!!! Stealing is when you take something from another without their consent and not paying for it... There is nothing wrong with what Jesus did...

On the other hand, the Clinton (in)Justice Dept (and at the rate things are going, possibly the Bush JD too) would go after him for attempting to monopolize the baking and fishing industries, for giving away something of value!

Mark

[j271]

Agree completely.

From now on will file swapping be referred to as "Copyright Terrorism"?

[Amerigomag]

and they think they ought to be legal

Count me in this camp when it comes to recorded music.

From my perspective the recording artist is entitled to no more than the proceeds of his/her live performances. Once the artists' work product hits the public airway it's in the public domain and once I purchase the artists' work product it is my property and I can dispose of it as I see fit.

[cinFLA]

The folks in the cubicles at RIAA became largely redundant when HTTP and FTP protocols became operable. It's not the consumer's problem if they are too dumb and too greedy to realize it. If lawmakers, bought off by Disney, RIAA, AOL-TimeWarner et al., regulate the net, creating a gargantuan new government agency in the process, just so Tommy Mottola can keep his $25 million mansion in New Jersey, they will soon find themselves replaced. The new crew of lawmakers will understand that the Internet irreversibly devalues intellectual property. There is no way to unring the bell.

Especially when they have price-fixed their merchandize (CD's) at rates higher than for other media. They even took Walmart to court (not sure, maybe just threatened to cut them off) for selling below "the allowed price".

[Bella_Bru]

Wow, I guess they are too scred of the dangerous criminals. Don't want to get hurt, you know.

[Magnum44]

Basically the recording industry has the Justice Dept. on retainer as its commercial litigator. I can't believe Ashcroft and his minions are spending 5 minutes on this issue.

Like it or not, DOJ is deriving this from the fundamental law of the land, the US Constitution.

Specifically, Article 1. Section 8 ...To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;...

Anyone concerned about govt expanding beyond its constitutional powers better be looking at a whole bunch of other things before they start to argue this one.

Now, the problem is the nation has raised a bunch of crooks who don't even think of themselves as stealing. What do we do when the majority of society is immoral? Because 'everybody does it', does that make it right?

[freebilly]

Wow! With all the problems the US is facing, the DOJ goes after file swappers??? I guess we must not have a problem with illegal immigration, organized crime, drugs, etc.

Didn't you hear? Drug offenses and unapproved border crossings are no longer crimes in this country. The only crimes worth pursuing are hate crimes against minorities and gays, file swapping, and insider trading (so long as the guilty party isn't named Rubin or McAuliffe).

[freebilly]

Now, the problem is the nation has raised a bunch of crooks who don't even think of themselves as stealing. What do we do when the majority of society is immoral? Because 'everybody does it', does that make it right?

No, file swapping is immoral and illegal, but faced with the current slew of problems besetting this country going after file swappers is like worrying about kids trespassing on your front lawn while someone's inside raping your wife....

[Amerigomag]

Now, the problem is the nation has raised a bunch of crooks who don't even think of themselves as stealing.

I assume your comments are directed toward the recording industry.

By the way your constitution site involved written works and discoveries which are not the subject of this discussion. While the constitution does protect your right to certain public utterences it did not guarantee your right to profit from those utterences.

[Maximum Leader]

Well stealing involves the deprivation of a property right.

Not even Congress can't take away your property rights without due compensatiion thanks to the Fourth Amendment(well, except for environmental regulations and real estate, but thats a whole other can of worms).

Whats involved here is neither a deprivation nor a property right. If someone copies a song off the internet. In no tangible way has the owner of the copyright been deprived of his right to use his property. Now certainly he has suffered lost profits, what in contract law is called "lost volume" damages. He would have made more profits if he had sold greater volume, so by not buying (and yet still enjoying use of his song) you're depriving him of his lost profits. But he can file a lawsuit, he doesn't need to have an FBI agent frisk someone to get to his wallet.

Copyrights... indeed "intellectual property" as a whole... are not property. Its a license granted by a Congress for "limited times". Congress can reduce the copyright period from 95 years to, say 6 months tomorrow and copyright holders would have no Fourth Amendment right for due compensation because the government deprived them of no property rights.
Now, I absolutely agree that the Justice Department has the constitutional right to enforce this law. However, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, I do think the Justice Department has better things to worry about.

[rwfromkansas]

How is file swapping stealing when you can go to the library and make copies of original works? That is what you do when you go to a file swapping site and download a song from a CD that someone bought with their own money, (the original copy to lend as a library).

[Magnum44]

Rgarding my earlier reply, the DOJ has more at stake here than your cheap digital music copy. Failure to defend the copyright law here puts at risk all copyright protected material and the copyright system, which publishing industries rely on to protect their business from theft. Likewise, it puts at risk the patent system which protects inventions and intellectual property. The system was designed to protect the writers/inventors so that they had incentive to be creative and inventive. Take that away and most innovation (and art) would grind to a halt.

When you look at it from that perspective, you might see how it ranks up there with the other priorities that DOJ has.

Not being one who downloads digital music, I almost wish this priority weren't so because I also think that border protection, illegal alien issues, and drug offenses should be more important. But since I have a half a dozen patents and I want that interest protected as the constitution guarantees me, I have to side with DOJ. Now I honestly can't imagine this is going to get the kind of manpower the war on terrorism or the WOJ gets.