What's new

Bush signs controversial anti-piracy law

LiLWaynE

I Feel Good
ICMag Donor
Veteran
uh oh y'all... check this shit out...

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/20081013/tc_nm/us_intellectualproperty_law


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush signed into law on Monday a controversial bill that would stiffen penalties for movie and music piracy at the federal level.

The law creates an intellectual property czar who will report directly to the president on how to better protect copyrights both domestically and internationally. The Justice Department had argued that the creation of this position would undermine its authority.

The law also toughens criminal laws against piracy and counterfeiting, although critics have argued that the measure goes too far and risks punishing people who have not infringed.

The Recording Industry Association of America and Motion Picture Association of America backed the bill, as did the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

"By becoming law, the PRO-IP Act sends the message to IP criminals everywhere that the U.S. will go the extra mile to protect American innovation," said Tom Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Counterfeiting and piracy costs the United States nearly $250 billion annually, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Rick Cotton, general counsel for NBC Universal, said the bill would give movie and music makers more tools to fight what he called a "tidal wave" of counterfeiting and piracy of everything from medical devices to automobile parts to media by organized crime.

"That is at the core of what this discussion is about," he said. "It is not about teenagers."

Cotton said he did not expect an IP czar to be named before Bush's term ended in January.

Richard Esguerra, spokesman for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said he was relieved to see lawmakers had stripped out a measure to have the Justice Department file civil lawsuits against pirates, which would have made the attorneys "pro bono personal lawyers for the content industry."

But the advocacy group Public Knowledge had argued that the law went too far, especially given that fair use of copyrighted material was already shrinking.

Public Knowledge particularly opposed a measure that allowed for the forfeiture of devices used in piracy.

"Let's suppose that there's one computer in the house, and one person uses it for downloads and one for homework. The whole computer goes," said Public Knowledge spokesman Art Brodsky.

Brodsky argued that, at best, the bill was unnecessary because the recording and movie industry had the right to take accused infringers to court.

"There's already lots and lots of penalties for copyright violations," he said. "They've got all the tools they need."

(Reporting by Diane Bartz; Editing by Bernard Orr, Gary Hill)
 

TwoOhSix!

Member
Lame. There's just no way they can possibly stop people from sharing data with each other on a large scale...stiffer penalties aren't gonna accomplish anything
 

maryj315

Member
I do not understand the deal with downloading music movies i do. Remember when grunge killed the hair bands most of those bands fell off the end of the earth now alot of them are touring why because of people have the ability to dig their music out of the grave in fact because of file sharing metallica will live forever and not just with old fans My 11yr has grateful dead songs on his ipod that i never even heard because radio only plays the most popular ones he listens to all kinds of music way more access to older bands than we had. As long as people are trading music there is opportunity for old and new bands Rhianna is a perfect example. They are just trying to keep the old system in place so they do not become irrelevant.
 

maryj315

Member
Sheriff Bart said:
sharing is bad for the economy
geez
dont you care about the economy?
The money is not in the music it is all in the tours and other marketing schemes.The more people who have access to their music the broader fan base they will have.And we are talking worldwide exposure for free well after they are dead.
 

zingablack

livin my way the high way
Veteran
man this is absurd. the govt keeps getting bigger and bigger. soon enough well be living in a socialist country.
 

Stoner4Life

Medicinal Advocate
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Sheriff Bart said:
sharing is bad for the economy
geez
dont you care about the economy?
Right on bro!
They made that music to sell it NOT to give it away.




maryj315 said:
The money is not in the music it is all in the tours and other marketing schemes.......
really? is that a fact or you talkin' out your butt?

Let's just say that I'm a session musician which means I do my recording in studios only, I don't tour, are you saying that you're entitled to steal my music, my art, my livelihood because I don't meet your demands or expectations that I make it on the road touring? And that second remark says it all maryj, everyone's entitled to an opinion maryj but to refer to the rest of the music industries efforts at supporting itself as SCHEMES? Do you think that attitude gives you the right to steal? I'd actually like to know exactly wtf you meant by schemes and htf (how the fuck) are the musicians & everybody else in the industry in those so called schemes supposed to profit from them? Really, what are those schemes comprised of?

And so why were they ever selling records in the first place if there's no money in it? Sam Goody would kick your ass.......:asskick:


Theft is theft and you CAN'T dress it up so that it fits your definition of what you want to be able to do regarding piracy online. A whole generation grew up stealing their music and movies from P2P sources over the net, those days are coming to a close so that musicians and movie studios can continue to afford to produce quality entertainment.

Now the 'Generation Theft' crowd is crying the blues (which btw is NOT piracy at all, feel free to cry away) that they'll need to cough up ka-jing to hear them sing.......



All due respect to anyone who produces music for a living, there's no guarantee anyones gonna like it, play it, buy it....... they desrve to make every penny they can for their efforts. If & when they hit it big in the business they often give back to the public with benefit concerts and supporting causes for the good of man.
 

ksac

Member
If I can still go out almost any day and buy some marijuana, I doubt piracy is coming to end any time soon.

If piracy is so harmful to the industry, why hasn't the industry slowed down any? Maybe it has, but to the average consumer, such as myself, it appears to be affected very little. They're still making gobs of money.

To create harsher punishments just pushes on the moral boundaries. How harsh can the punishments be on someone for piracy before it's immoral? The answer to that will vary from person to person. The answer will also depend on the situation for which many facts must be taken into account. You can not always depend on the judicial system to interpret and use the law morally.

But, is this really better for humanity? A restriction on information with stricter laws. Do the goods outweigh the bads? Surely, there is another direction that can be taken. A better solution that is less likely to infringe on human rights.

The music and movie business has always followed the progression of media format. Why are they so stubborn with the electronic format? The music business has taken a step forward already by making music available on the internet for a small fee. It's convenient and affordable enough to be attractive. Suffocate piracy with convenience and affordability (why not quality too?). I'm not suggesting that this will eliminate piracy, but neither will stricter laws or harsher punishments. I do believe it is a better idea, without having to punish someone. There is money to be made with electronic formats.

So that I'm not misunderstood, I believe that it is immoral to make money from pirated material as much as I believe it is immoral to punish someone needlessly.
 

accessndx

♫All I want to do is zoom-a-zoom-zoom-zoom..
Veteran
They can try to do whatever they want....a majority of the "pirating" issues take place in areas of the world we cannot police....a great example would be China....
They knock-off EVERYTHING possible from handbags to hair....not to mention software and movies.
It's a B.S. move that is meaningless because the real money is being made elsewhere.

As long as there's something to pirate...there will be pirates...end of story...arrg...time to walk the plank matey! :bashhead:
 

TwoOhSix!

Member
Stoner4Life said:
Right on bro!
A whole generation grew up stealing their music and movies from P2P sources over the net, those days are coming to a close so that musicians and movie studios can continue to afford to produce quality entertainment.
Coming to a close? They have definitely put a slight damper on p2p file sharing like Napster and Kazaa in the old days, but with the advent of BitTorrent technology and streaming video available on the web, its really no harder to pirate software and music/video than it was before.
They are moving the right direction with the iTunes $1 a song stuff - this is the only way they are going to appeal to people so they stop pirating as much.
Increasing penalties to curb pirating is like making stiffer laws against marijuana use. Are people going to stop smoking? NO. It's fucking pointless.
 

Stoner4Life

Medicinal Advocate
ICMag Donor
Veteran
ksac said:
If piracy is so harmful to the industry, why hasn't the industry slowed down any?


Maybe it has, but to the average consumer, such as myself, it appears to be affected very little. They're still making gobs of money.



So that I'm not misunderstood, I believe that it is immoral to make money from pirated material as much as I believe it is immoral to punish someone needlessly.
Because they're trying harder than ever to stay ahead of the bootleggers & piracy networks? And w/o being an insider you wouldn't be privy to that info anyway and it's about piracy NOT the speed of the industry.

They're only making gobs of money off what they can sell, and btw the record companies have been raising their prices because of all the piracy on the internet. When a teenager goes into the record shop & sees that his favorite CD is priced @ $18-22 for a single album, $35+ for dbl CD set it makes him go home to mommy's house and steal it off the net instead.


And just so that I'm not left confused.......
are you saying that someone caught stealing music via P2P or anything else they wanna call it should go unpunished? How about when you open a store or restaurant and I come by to shoplift or do the dine and dash, you saying it's OK just as long others are doing the same thing? I don't get it.
I DON'T SEE A DIFFERENCE


Let's just say you author a book, it retails for $29.95 and your heart and soul is in it, someone at Time magazine decides that it'd increase their circulation if they reprinted your book chapter by chapter weekly and of course FUCK YOU on any royalties. You gonna be the same laid back guy you seem to be above? I don't friggin' think so. But HEY! Your publisher was smart enough to copyright your book (even though you weren't) and they put a stop to the Time magazine scam.
ANY OF THIS STARTING TO SOUND FAMILIAR YET?


Music is copyrighted for the same exact reason.

I know you said it was immoral to make $$$ off of pirated material but that's EXACTLY what is happening. P2P site owners skim the cream from the top, they do NOTHING to enhance the industry and steal from everyone involved, every janitor, office worker, roadie, etc.......

Theft is theft, dressing it up with uncalled for insinuations that they're making gobs of $$$ is an outrageous tactic that is 100% irrelevant. They're entitled to make all they can from whatever they own the rights to. Neither you nor anybody else has any say in that matter, theft is theft.
 
Last edited:

RudolfTheRed

Active member
Veteran
lol, 'theft is theft' is so stupid. most of the albums i have downloaded i wasn't going to buy anyway. if i really like the album then i buy it. also downloading music has turned me onto so many new bands that i would have never heard otherwise. its free exposure. a lot of musicians agree that its been GREAT for there careers and have a much larger fan base because of it. believe me i've talked to and know plenty of musicians who have benefited from it. then people support them other ways through merchandise sales (t-shirts, etc.), going to there concerts, and so on.
I suggest you hear listen to a guy named Ian Mckaye from the hardcore band Minor Threat and now Fugazi talk about music. heres an excert from one of his interviews. I think he hit the nail right on the fucking head right here.

From an Ian Mackaye (singer of Fugazi) interview:

NICHOLAS: So what do you think about, with all the technology changes that we're seeing, how do you feel about people downloading your music from filesharing networks?

IAN: Oh, I'm happy to have them download the music, it doesn't bother me at all, because that's why I made the music, because I want people to hear it, that's it, that's the point. And obviously, someone selling it? They're ****ed. But that would just be another example of the sort of avarice and greed that exist in this music world. [..]
Obviously I would like people to support us, that'd be great. But at the end of the day, I'd rather people hear the music. You know I don't own any Bob Dylan music, well actually I think I do, but you know when I was growing up I didn't, but I certainly knew his music because of the radio, I didn't pay for that.[..]
I mean, how cool would it be to know that there's some kid in Pakistan who downloaded all our records and listens to them all the time-- I'm happy, I don't give a damn. I mean the argument against it is always just monetary, and again, that's the least interesting aspect of music for me. [..]
If people lose their incentive to make music because they're not making money, they're not musicians. They're business people. Musicians don't have a choice in the matter, you gotta make music. There's no choice! It's not a ****ing job description, there's no choice!

its not a quote from some no named guy either. if you don't know who minor threat or fugazi is then i feel sorry for you. two highly influential bands and the guy runs his own record label. made a career out of music and stuck to this philosophy the whole time.
 
Last edited:

TwoOhSix!

Member
And if it weren't fore file sharing, youtube, ect. some bands would have never made it off the ground. How can downloading music be super illegal if you can go to imeem or pandora or youtube and listen to it streaming for free? Its already all over the web!
 

RudolfTheRed

Active member
Veteran
only metallica gets pissed when people download there music... i'd say most musicians, or any real musician doesn't give a fuck. even artists on major labels have come out and said they encourage people to share there music. look at radiohead. hell they've offered there albums to the public for free. its the record labels that care because there getting cut out. people no longer need them to find exposure. when radiohead offered there album online for free they did it without a record label. they released it themselves. so when they did sale an album (and they still sold like 300,000 in 6 weeks) all the revenues went to them and not some shady ass record label looking to exploit a situation.
 

T-type

Active member
Im so glad that there is yet another agency dedicated to persecuting people like myself...
At least this time the proceeds of subsequent busts will go straight to the corporate fat cats and not the government (or artists)....
 

ksac

Member
And just so that I'm not left confused....... are you saying that someone caught stealing music via P2P or anything else they wanna call it should go unpunished? How about when you open a store or restaurant and I come by to shoplift or do the dine and dash, you saying it's OK just as long others are doing the same thing? I don't get it. I DON'T SEE A DIFFERENCE

The restaurant analogy isn't a very good one. For one, it doesn't cost the music/movie industry any money for the reproductions for piracy. The analogy would be better suited for an argument against the thief of DVDs or CDs. I'm only talking about information.

Do you believe that we should increase the punishment for people who "dine and dash" because people still do it? I mean, people still commit murder even if the penalty is death. Not much worse you could do to them, yet the crime lives on. Stricter laws just don't completely solve the problem, but do manage to create more suffering in the world.

What I'm trying to get across is there are different ways to fight the problem than just causing greater suffering to the perpetrator.

Let's just say you author a book, it retails for $29.95 and your heart and soul is in it, someone at Time magazine decides that it'd increase their circulation if they reprinted your book chapter by chapter weekly and of course FUCK YOU on any royalties. You gonna be the same laid back guy you seem to be above? I don't friggin' think so. But HEY! Your publisher was smart enough to copyright your book (even though you weren't) and they put a stop to the Time magazine scam. ANY OF THIS STARTING TO SOUND FAMILIAR YET?

This analogy doesn't fit either. Time magazine would be making money from my book without my permission, which is something I have already said is immoral. So, of course I wouldn't be happy with it.
 
W

Wunderkind

I agree that pirating is a form of theft, but man, I love that special place where everything is 100% off and anything you want is at your fingertips.
 
W

Wunderkind

ksac said:
The restaurant analogy isn't a very good one. For one, it doesn't cost the music/movie industry any money for the reproductions for piracy. The analogy would be better suited for an argument against the thief of DVDs or CDs. I'm only talking about information.
good point. I've also thought about this. The "money lost" is so over inflated. I was never going to pay to watch "Strange Wilderness" no matter what. So how are they losing any money by me pirating it?
 

RudolfTheRed

Active member
Veteran
I think its funny the MPAA (motion picture association of America) has been caught lying about the damage piracy does to there industry several times. They tried to blame the problem on college kids initially saying that 44% of them download movies... when the figure is closer to right around 10%. they've also inflated the amount of money they have lost and lied about the amount of movies being pirated. Fuck them. They are crooks and thieves themselves. They lied so bills like this could get passed. Its more power for them. That's all its about. power and money.
 
Top