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."
I don't have the answers either, but what do you think of this? Someone just gave me a CD by a long dead bluesman. From what I can tell they paid close to the $18.00 list (the fools!) price. Who gets the money? What was the cost of producing, releasing and shipping the CD to a record store? (Costs of marketing a 1940s bluesman? You've got to be kidding!) And finally, is stealing from thieves morally, ethically OK? We know what the religious authorities would say. What would the philosophers say? Who's stealing?
Somehow, for better or worse, because no physical tangible property is involved, these pirate millions don't believe they are stealing. And many think that buying a reproduction of this "art" shouldn't be any different or priced any differently than buying a postcard reproduction of Mona Lisa. Instead it's more like buying a framed poster size reproduction of the painting. Are they wrong? I dunno. Just some things to consider.
How can you steal from someone who makes a willing purchase? If you feel like the price is a ripoff, then don't buy a CD, but don't justify stealing the music and say it's OK because the price of a CD has risen more than you like.
You're making the case for PTP.
I didn't realize I'd done this, nor did I realize I even had the power to condemn millions to hell. Who knew?
is stealing from thieves morally, ethically OK?
Who are you calling thieves, the record companies? Last I checked the free market system we embrace in this country allows a business to charge what a willing buyer will pay. You think they charge too much, fine, don't buy their product, but don't try to justify stealing it. That's thug thinking. Or maybe we should just regulate the price of CDs. I know how much Freepers just love more government regulation.
Yep, the record industry killed the single, first by pricing the CD single sky high and then by trying to fool us by cramming it with multiple and usually horrible mixes of the one hit and then further pissing the record collectors by including one cut unavailable elsewhere on that $6.99 CD single. Shee-it!
I remember the moment it happened too. Around the time of Garth Brooks' big (and the only one worth anything) hit Friends in Low Places. This was at the end of the 45RPM single era. Garth's previous, sizeable hit The Dance was issued on a 45, but not this tune which would have sold like gangbusters and should have been in every US tavern's jukebox at the time. Garth and his record company, said no, there'll be no single. How clever! Wanna have it? Buy the forthcoming album with 10 fillers! A classic 45 single hit never appeared in stores as a single!
Didn't Clowntoon shift FBI manpower from anti-terrorism to Hollywood copyright enforcement when he was in the Oral Office?
If somebody is shoplifting goods from a store, I'm all for catching the shoplifter. Reasonable security efforts by the storekeeper and police, and reasonable punishments once someone is caught and proven guilty, are part of the normal workings of society.
However, suppose that a shopkeeper subjects his customers to searches resembling the worst airport-gestapo horror stories we've been hearing, sends spies to search homes for possible stolen goods. Suppose further that the shopkeeper persuades the city council to enact life imprisonment for shoplifting, and lobbies for additional laws requiring everyone in town to wear special gloves that make it difficult to pick up objects.
In the latter case, I daresay that the neigbors are going to stop giving a rat's ass if he is robbed, and might well go so far as to cheer on the robbers. If they did not, they would be so pusillanimous as to make Trent Lott resemble King Leonidas by comparison.
The latter is the situation the recording industry has created for itself by attacking, not only real bootlegging, but legitimate fair-use copying for purposes of backup, time shifting, format conversion, etc, and by insisting upon draconian penalties for doing either against its wishes.
The music business has been my career for over 15 years. I could educate you on the business as far back as you like. Know who you're talking to before you make stupid statements like that.
They stole and stole and robbed and robbed and are robbing and stealing from artists to this very day. That's why I (and many others) call them thieves.
Oh, so your stealing music is really an act of solidarity with expoloited artists in retribution against the record companies for their past misdeeds. Forgive me if I'm skeptical and think you're just looking for an excuse to be a freeloader.
Interesting but completely beside the point. A record company's contractual relationship with it's artists is really none of your business and certainly doesn't serve as any basis for you to steal music protected by copyright law.
Bottom line... downloading music without paying for it is breaking the law. Do we enforce the law or don't we?
I guess first I should try to fathom how you extrapolated this fantasy scenario out of enforcing copyright law, which was written into the original Constitution.
The latter is the situation the recording industry has created for itself by attacking, not only real bootlegging, but legitimate fair-use copying for purposes of backup, time shifting, format conversion, etc, and by insisting upon draconian penalties for doing either against its wishes.
First of all, the situations you mentioned are already protected as fair use either by statute or by court ruling (in the case of time shifting). Secondly, I think far from being draconian, the recording industry has been far too patient with the massive looting of their product by PTP downloading. They're well within their rights to insist that the law be enforced and their legitimate copyright interests be protected.
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.