SOPA

[MeGusta]

For the record, Freecare, copyright infringement can be a criminal offense if the total value exceeds $1,000 in 180 days, if you make any copyrighted item available on any public network, or if you download it for the purposes of of commercial advantage or private financial gain.

§ 506. Criminal offenses6

(a) Criminal Infringement. —

(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed —

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) 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; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

And can be remedied thus:

§ 2319. CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT

(a) Any person who violates section 506 (a) (relating to criminal offenses) of title 17 shall be punished as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (d) and such penalties shall be in addition to any other provisions of title 17 or any other law.
(b) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1)(A) of title 17—
(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;
(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a felony and is a second or subsequent offense under subsection (a); and
(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.
(c) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1)(B) of title 17—
(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more;
(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 6 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a felony and is a second or subsequent offense under subsection (a); and
(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000.
(d) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1)(C) of title 17—
(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, fined under this title, or both;
(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, fined under this title, or both, if the offense was committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 6 years, fined under this title, or both, if the offense is a felony and is a second or subsequent offense under subsection (a); and
(4) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined under this title, or both, if the offense is a felony and is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (2).

For arguments sake if we consider the average cost of a DVD to be $17.00 have you downloaded 59 movies in 6 months? Easy to do. Add in music at $0.99 per song and say you downloaded 200 songs in 6 months. Also easy. That would only be 48 movies and 200 songs for jail time.

Say you didn't even download this much but you took one movie and placed it on a sharing site or torrent site. That would also qualify as a criminal act.

Back on topic, what this proves is that there is already law to protect content owners. SOPA is a horrible law.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

Back on topic, what this proves is that there is already law to protect content owners. SOPA is a horrible law.

Mostly agreed. We don't need more IP laws. We need more innovation and acceptance that the internet isn't going away. The internet is also never going to fit the mold of a broadcast medium. That ship has sailed.

But SOPA probably won't pass now that big tech is making its stand. The nerds may not be good lobyists but their presense is definitely starting to be felt.

If for some reason it does pass, It'll die a death of 1,000 lawyers. Which by the way is pretty much the only jobs that SOPA will create.

If it does pass, and isn't torn to itty bitty pieces, then my prediction is that the backlash against the entertainment industry is going to be of epic proportions.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

[Ddrak]

@MeGusta,

Your interpretation of the law is incorrect. The definition of "a work being prepared for commercial distribution" limits the criminality to distribution prior to it being generally available.

Refer: http://www.cybercrime.gov/ipmanual/02ip ... .B.3.c.iii.

Uploading torrents is purely a civil matter. Pure downloading is even more murky - while it's clear the one sending the data is infringing on copyright, the recipient could attempt to claim they were unaware of the status of the copyright and simply give up access to the movies when demanded.

Dd

[Kulaf]

Sweet Free.....copy us all up some $100's and send em off. I'm sure the Treasury Dept will TOTALLY understand once you show em that video.

[Ddrak]

Counterfeiting isn't theft either. In fact, counterfeiting is much closer to copyright infringement than theft.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Counterfeiting isn't thefy, and it isn't copyright infringement either. Its counterfeiting, which has its own legal definition. Lets not compare an apple to an orange when you're really talking about a lemon.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

Counterfeiting isn't thefy, and it isn't copyright infringement either. Its counterfeiting, which has its own legal definition. Lets not compare an apple to an orange when you're really talking about a lemon.

Clever! So is there anyone here that doesn't think SOPA is a lemon? Seems like without that there is no "on topic".

Sweet Free.....copy us all up some $100's and send em off. I'm sure the Treasury Dept will TOTALLY understand once you show em that video.

You unintentially make my point. Having a stack of copies of $100 bills sitting on my desk is in no way wrong. I can pin 'em up on the wall or get a monacle and pretend I'm the Monopoly guy. I can make rap videos where I'm waving them around like a pimp muthafucka. I'm not doing anything wrong until I try to profit from -as in spend- them. My stack of xeroxed 100's doesn't take anything away from anyone or do the economy one iota of harm until I try to profit from them.

So a xeroxed $100 does not take $100 from the economy the same way that a copied movie doesn't take away $20 from the economy. If I spend a copied $100, or if I sell a copied DVD, then that's the point in my opinion where it becomes wrong.

Not really an apples to apples comparison as DD and Embar have pointed out, but I think it still illustrates the point.

Enjoying something like a movie in the privacy of your own home for non commercial purposes without the express written consent of the rights-holder has always been completely congruent with the concept and spirit of copyright. Fair use is part of and has always been built into copyright law, which is intended mainly to protect content creators from having others exploit their work commercially. That is the intended purpose of copyright law. It's only recently that Hollywood has had enough political influence to make a serious play at taking fair use away from us. And just like an Apple product release, people line up around the block like sheep to give away their consumer rights just like they do with their privacy.

[Kulaf]

So what you are saying is you only make duplicates of movies you already own?

[Lurker]

I think he's back to saying that copyright law doesn't apply to him.

[Ddrak]

So... is downloading a copyrighted work actually illegal? A quick browse of the law sites tells me they're avoiding this question and focus instead on "copying", "sharing" or "uploading" which all focus on the person distributing and not the person receiving.

Just wondering out loud...

Dd

[Freecare Spiritwise]

A good article at Ars Technica:

White House-backed antipiracy video is Reefer Madness for the digital age

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... al-age.ars

[Freecare Spiritwise]

Another one from Ars:

SOPA on the ropes? Bipartisan alternative to 'Net censorship emerges

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... merges.ars

Mike Masnick over at Techdirt has been saying all along that this is an international trade issue, and it looks like some people are coming around to that. The geeks are mobilising! The Luddites are angry

[Freecare Spiritwise]

Breakdown of who's gotten what from the entertainment industry:

Among the 25 SOPA cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, here's a breakdown of which legislators have brought in donations from big media in TV, music and movies during their careers in Congress.

• Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., $1,727,156. His southern district border is Hollywood Blvd. and he was the beneficiary at a fundraiser earlier this month hosted by two lobbyists at a firm that represents the National Broadcasting Association.

• Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., $516,400
• Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., $488,731
• Rep. Mary Bono Mack, R-Calif., $488,636
• Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Tex., $392,995 (sponsor)
• Rep. Robert Goodlatte, R-VA, $316,686
• Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., $261,700
• Rep. Lee Terry, R-Nev., $248,168
• Rep. John Barrow, D-GA, $210,900
• Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., $204,199
• Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Calif., $133,023
• Rep. Melvin Watt, D-N.C., $130,100
• Rep. John Carter, R-Tex., $75,850
• Rep. Karen Bass, D-Calif., $64,648
• Rep. Steve Scalise, R-LA, $54,000
• Rep. William Owens, D-N.Y., $42,850
• Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Fla., $30,000
• Rep. Thomas Marino, R-Penn., $21,300

The nearly 40 cosponsors of the Protect IP Act, SOPA's partner legislation in the Senate, have received more than $13.5 million from the TV, music and movies industry since entering Congress. Here's a rundown:

• Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., $1,996,470
• Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., $1,465,160
• Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., $1,295,718
• Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., $899,366 (sponsor)
• Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., $890,668
• Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., $747,491
• Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mont., $503,291
• Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., $493,069
• Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, $492,407
• Sen. Robert Menéndez, D-N.J., $445,575
• Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., $430,500
• Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., $368,733
• Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., $365,589
• Sen. Robert Casey, D-Penn., $343,225
• Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., $312,320
• Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., $297,771
• Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, $291,621
• Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, $284,225
• Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., $254,162
• Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., $237,084
• Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., $230,569
• Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., $218,539
• Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., - $217,847
• Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., - $171,790
• Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., $158,066
• Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., $94,450

[Ddrak]

Not to mention Biden, who's been in the entertainment industry's pocket forever.

Dd

[Freecare Spiritwise]

Yeah, Biden is the worst. But what I really take away from those numbers is that it doesn't matter who I vote for or what party my personal ideology aligns with. We get the same thing either way. Hollywood has so much fucking money they can play every number on the roulette wheel.

It's the worst kind of corruption too because the Luddites have lobbied to be put in charge of the textile mills. The foxes are in charge of the hen house or whatever metaphor. The people who are fearful and ignorant of technology are the ones very close to having the ability to regulate it.

Also, we haven't talked much about the techonlogy behind SOPA and how utterly pointless it is. The circumvention is already complete, and the law would be obsolete technically before it ever takes effect. There's no way to stop infringement. That ship sailed long ago.

We haven't talked much either about the massive PR backlash against the US over all this. Whatever imaginary losses the entertainment industry claims from infringement are going to be real and tangible losses from our lack of credibility and trust in the tech sector. We were already seeing an exodus of talent and resources. And that's not just SOPA but our other draconian policies too. I think the biblical reference is "robbing Peter to pay Paul." So even if SOPA doesn't pass, the damage has already been done to our credibility.

How are we competing in the global economy? By alienating the major players! Bad for business as Don Corleone would say...

[Kulaf]

Hasn't stopped you from wanting their product has it? For all of your angst about Hollywood, you line up like a street corner junkie to download their latest offering.

How good was Conan again? I hear that $0 refund check is in the mail.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

I hear that $0 refund check is in the mail.

Yep. I want my zero dollars back. It was that bad.

[Taxious]

[Taxious]

Take some action! I'm definitely moving my GoDaddy domains over to another registrar on 12/29!
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/commen ... 1_domains/