Posted on 08/24/2002 7:38:54 PM PDT by LibFreeUSA
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."
Or statism, to say the least.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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".
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?
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).
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....
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.
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.
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.