# Life in Prison for Software Piracy?



## Paul Revere (Oct 28, 2007)

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is pressing the U.S. Congress to enact a sweeping intellectual-property bill that would increase criminal penalties for copyright infringement, including "attempts" to commit piracy.

The Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007 Will:

Criminalize "attempting" to infringe copyright law
Create a new crime of life imprisonment for using copyrighted software
Permit more wiretaps for piracy investigations
Allow computers to be seized more readily
Require Homeland Security to alert the RIAA of piracy suspects

You can end up going to jail for life just for downloading a song.

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9719339-7.html?tag=bl
http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/004394.html


----------



## webkilla (Oct 28, 2007)

thats it - pool is closed

in other news: buy a house in sweeden - its cheap!


----------



## hypr (Oct 28, 2007)

isn't it for counterfeited manufactured goods that cause death like here there was counterfeit tooth paste that apparently had antifreeze in it.


----------



## Paul Revere (Oct 28, 2007)

I don't think so, actually.  As far as I know, the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007 only covers so-called "crimes" committed on a computer.

Here's why I think this is so ridiculous.  Everyone downloads music illegally.  The internet is changing the way people get their media, and the old intellectual property rights laws need to change.  You can't put _everyone_ in jail, and policing the internet is bad for society.


----------



## net-cat (Oct 28, 2007)

(a) Alberto Gonzales isn't the Attorney General anymore.
(b) This isn't the first time it's been proposed. Once in 2006 and once in 2004, apparently. (link) It was defeated by a wide margin both times.


----------



## webkilla (Oct 28, 2007)

ya - no senator wants to be busted with their haxed mp3s on their sons computer...

thats the trick with laws that are too tight - if they squeeze the legislators it'll never get through


----------



## ADF (Oct 28, 2007)

Call me old fashioned but I'm under the school of thought that a punishment for a crime should scale with the offence. Obviously that only works in a justice system and not the fear mongering punishment system they have in place. How did listening to unlicensed music become so damaging to society that peoples lives have to be destroyed to prevent it?

So this is what they think will solve the problem? Jails full of scum that had to be separated from society for its protection will be sharing cells with MP3 downloaders? I dare them to rationalize how someone downloading music is such a threat to society that they had to be locked up using tax money, it would cost more to keep them in there than the crime itself.

To put a citizen, a possibly highly qualified citizen who could contribute to society in jail for 'life' for stealing something they can buy for a tenner down the shops? The people suggesting this, they are the ones who need to be locked up, because if that bullet point list is what they want then they are a bigger threat to the average person than terrorists.


----------



## Eevee (Oct 28, 2007)

We want to use life imprisonment for stealing $1 worth of intangible goods now?

Lovely.


----------



## Paul Revere (Oct 29, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> The people suggesting this, they are the ones who need to be locked up, because if that bullet point list is what they want then they are a bigger threat to the average person than terrorists.



You hit the nail on the head, ADF.  They _*are*_ the terrorists.


----------



## Rilvor (Oct 29, 2007)

Eevee said:
			
		

> We want to use life imprisonment for stealing $1 worth of intangible goods now?
> 
> Lovely.



*gasp* that bastard! He illegally downloaded a 10 cent song! BURN HIM AT THE STAKE! HE'S PURE EVIL!


----------



## nobuyuki (Oct 29, 2007)

he's not the attorney general.


----------



## Brooklyn (Oct 29, 2007)

Clearly you did not read the article.

"...* Create a new crime of life imprisonment for using pirated software. Anyone using counterfeit products who *"recklessly causes or attempts to cause death"* can be imprisoned for life. During a conference call, Justice Department officials gave the example of a hospital using pirated software instead of paying for it...."

Meaning that using pirated software that /does not have the potential to cause physical harm/ is not on the list.

"...* Add penalties for "intended" copyright crimes. Certain copyright crimes currently require someone to commit the "distribution, including by electronic means, *during any 180-day period of at least 10 copies" valued at more than $2,500.* The IPPA would insert a new prohibition: actions that were "intended to consist of" distribution...."

No, a song valued at $0.75 is not on the list.

"...* Require Homeland Security to alert the Recording Industry Association of America....[blahblahblahbullshitbullshitbullshit]..."

Since when has a private, not-in-contract-, company /ever/ had a direct line to the government?


----------



## Grimfang (Oct 29, 2007)

Whatever the case, I figure this golden age of media sharing won't last forever. So, might as well enjoy it while we have it.


----------



## Eevee (Oct 29, 2007)

Or, you know, pay for stuff and support the least dain-bramaged sales model you can find.


----------



## Paul Revere (Oct 29, 2007)

Brooklyn said:
			
		

> *"recklessly causes or attempts to cause death"* can be imprisoned for life. During a conference call, Justice Department officials gave the example of a hospital using pirated software instead of paying for it....
> 
> Meaning that using pirated software that /does not have the potential to cause physical harm/ is not on the list.



I knew someone would point this out.  There is absolutely no conceivable way that someone could cause death by pirating software.  That's like saying anyone who causes death by prank phone calls gets life in prison.

Their argument about the hospital says it all.  The bill mentions counterfeit goods.  Counterfeit goods are not the same as actual goods, and are in many cases inferior.  But pirated software is EXACTLY THE SAME as software that is not pirated.  There is no such thing as "counterfeit software".  There is pirated and unlicensed software, but not counterfeit software.  No one writes an entire operating system and then tries to pass it off as Microsoft Windows.  NO!  They get a copy of windows and crack it.

And when I say this example says it all, I mean it really says it all.  These people know that a hospital is no more likely to cause death by using "counterfeit software", as they call it.  But they want you to believe that this "counterfeit" (pirated) software is markedly less reliable than legal software BECAUSE it would justify all these new government powers.

And even on the off-chance that someone actually does die in a hospital as a DIRECT result of pirated software, there are already legal avenues that allow for prosecution of that sort of thing.  This bill is completely useless and entirely deceptive.

What you _don't_ understand (and of course it's through no fault of your own, as you just don't know) is that it's just a bunch of legal blahblah and they'll throw your ass in prison anyways.

EDIT:  And please, don't ever tell me I didn't read the article.  I always read the article.

EDIT AGAIN:
The two most concerning developments in this so-called "bill" are as follows:
Software piracy is now punishable by Life Imprisonment (under the bullshit pretense that it can "cause death").
The government is more readily able to raid your house and take your computer (omg because you might delete something).

So, they can hack into _my_ computer (to see if I hacked into anyone elses computer), and then put me in prison for life because I hacked a computer ...??

ADF said it right.  The people who made this bill should be the ones going to jail.  This doesn't exist to protect anyones rights (whether it be civil rights or intellectual property rights), but is merely a way for the government to increase its power.  *THE GUVAMENT IS CHARGIN ITZ LASER!*

YET ANOTHER EDIT: Sorry, I don't mean to sound so irritated.  It's the bill that's making me angry, not people's opinions.  These shenanigans from our government make me angry enough to scream sometimes.


----------



## ADF (Oct 29, 2007)

Brooklyn said:
			
		

> b]during any 180-day period of at least 10 copies" valued at more than $2,500.[/b]


Yet these people are famous for pulling damages of hundreds of thousands out of their ass; $2500 is nothing, they will find some way to rationalize it.


----------



## sgolem (Oct 30, 2007)

Holy shit.  That's about 2/3+ of the college and high school population in jail for life right there.  

Fuck the economy.  There is justice to be served! *cue video of animated George Washington beheading someone with the American Flag*.


----------



## Kloudmutt (Oct 30, 2007)

jail for life? i wish cuz the thing is that i would go rigth to the electric chair. Anybody wants popcorn?


----------



## Paul Revere (Oct 30, 2007)

net-cat said:
			
		

> (a) Alberto Gonzales isn't the Attorney General anymore.



Copied from old news article ><



			
				net-cat said:
			
		

> (b) This isn't the first time it's been proposed. Once in 2006 and once in 2004, apparently. (link) It was defeated by a wide margin both times.



Hm, I didn't know that.  Hopefully, it will get struck down again.  And prospects look good considering Congress extended the Internet tax moratorium today.
http://searchcio.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid19_gci1280317,00.html

EDIT: It makes me angry, though, that these kind of bills keep showing up in Congress.  If you've heard of the Dream Act, then you probably know the feeling ...


----------



## Xipoid (Oct 31, 2007)

I could see harsh penalties for someone knowingly distributing and/or selling pirated software on a large scale basis, but for John Doe the average American who has an illegal copy of windows or the latest Tool CD? Slap him some community service or a petty larceny charge (grand larceny if it's _that_ bad) and move on. Of course, you'll need to change the definition of larceny first.


As for music, the entire situation is a cluster, so I have no comment.


----------



## darkdoomer (Oct 31, 2007)

one more law like this and there's going to be more people inside the prisons than outside of them =D

ahm... =(   wow.


----------



## silvertwilight (Nov 4, 2007)

I dont understand why you would get a life imprisonment for stealing software, it should be treated the same a normal theft.
If I stole a copy of word then I should be treated like someone who stole the disk from bestbuy

What makes software so different?


----------



## Horrorshow (Nov 4, 2007)

If something like this gets passed for such a mundane crime, then there should be harsh punishments for other things. Like, life in prison for fat girls that wear clothes that are clearly too small for them. Much like these companies tired of not getting as much money as they possibly can,  I'm tired of seeing fat people who can't dress appropriately. >:[


----------



## Bloodangel (Nov 5, 2007)

Paul Revere said:
			
		

> *snipalicious*
> Their argument about the hospital says it all.  The bill mentions counterfeit goods.  Counterfeit goods are not the same as actual goods, and are in many cases inferior.  But pirated software is EXACTLY THE SAME as software that is not pirated.  *There is no such thing as "counterfeit software".  There is pirated and unlicensed software, but not counterfeit software.*
> *snipsnip*



Counterfeit software has been produced over the years, especialy in the gaming sector.

If you don't believe me, go look up Somari.

Yeah, Somari isn't going to get anyone killed, but it's evidence of counterfeit software nonetheless.


----------



## Paul Revere (Nov 11, 2007)

Bloodangel said:
			
		

> Paul Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




LOL, I actually checked that out.  That's funny.  True, it's evidence of counterfeit software.  My point is, there's already legal avenues to prosecute this sort of thing, and I think it's just a ploy for increasing government power over the internet and people's computers.


----------



## Summercat (Dec 31, 2007)

Nimhster said:
			
		

> Paul Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thread Necromancy = Failure.


----------



## uncia (Dec 31, 2007)

Summercat said:
			
		

> Thread Necromancy = Failure.


With content and still relevant = AOK, IMHO.

Gives me an opportunity to add in an update along similar lines from over in France.
http://www.rlslog.net/france-approves-new-antipiracy-law/


> French web users caught pirating movies or music could soon be thrown offline. Those illegally sharing files will face the loss of their net access thanks to a newly-created anti-piracy body granted the wide-ranging powers. The anti-piracy body comes out of a deal agreed by Franceâ€™s music and movie makers and its net firms. The group who brokered the deal said the measures were intended to curb casual piracy rather than tackle large scale pirate groups. French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the deal was a â€œdecisive moment for the future of a civilised internetâ€. Net firms will monitor what their customers are doing and pass on information about persistent pirates to the new independent body. Those identified will get a warning and then be threatened with either being cut off or suspended if they do not stop illegal file-sharing. The agreement between net firms, record companies, film-makers and government was drawn up by a special committee created to look at the problem of the net and cultural protection.
> 
> Denis Olivennes, head of the French chain store FNAC, who chaired the committee said current penalties for piracy - large fines and years in jail - were â€œtotally disproportionateâ€ for those young people who do file-share illegally. In return for agreeing to monitor net use, film-makers agreed to speed up the transfer of movies to DVD and music firms pledged to support DRM-free tracks on music stores. The deal was hailed by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), which represents the global interests of the music business. Things are getting more serious in these daysâ€¦



Similar "compromises" to follow elsewhere?

d.


----------



## Summercat (Dec 31, 2007)

uncia said:
			
		

> Summercat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Relavent, but adds nothing that hasn't already be said. Twice. @.@


----------



## Ceceil Felias (Dec 31, 2007)

Summercat said:
			
		

> uncia said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think he was referring to what he submitted to the thread himself.

That's something a little more discussion-worthy anywho, especially since the original subject was "lol another joke of a bill, one which probably will get thrown out of the house anyway"

But I ramble (well, okay, not really).

ITT now kicking people off the internet in France


----------



## DarkMike (Dec 31, 2007)

Ok, then I will never use media sharing again? This is...oh wait, they said Software Piracy, I get it now. I thought for sure that it would be like "OMG, your downloading AC/DC from a media sharing service like LimeWire! You will have no internets!" but then again, the world is just so damn corrupted.

It will be so corrupted with these stupid laws, that there will be a lot of homebrew music that everybody can just compose by themselves under a Creative Commons License. Good enough for me, if I can be able to compose music, I would just say: "Use it on whatever you want for free, but credit me please!"

It would be a good example, but this junk is making me hate radio! *groan*


----------



## JAK3ST3RB (Jan 14, 2008)

ahh fuck ive got like 4gb's of downloaded music


----------



## Rhainor (Jan 14, 2008)

Mmm, I love the smell of necromancy in the morning.



...not.


----------



## Ceceil Felias (Jan 14, 2008)

I'm sure all relevant pieces of information in this thread are now outdated and dead.

Quit digging up old graves to bitch about something that doesn't matter anymore. D:


----------



## IceDragonVisy (Jan 17, 2008)

Rhainor said:
			
		

> Mmm, I love the smell of necromancy in the morning.



Don't you mean sour lemons?


----------



## Ceceil Felias (Jan 18, 2008)

Weapon Yoshi said:
			
		

> Rhainor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, as far as I can tell this is a by-the-book case of "'Current' event that's no longer current". No need to treat it as something more than it is, especially if you're just bringing in paranoia.


----------



## Melo (Jan 19, 2008)

Eevee said:
			
		

> Or, you know, pay for stuff and support the least dain-bramaged sales model you can find.



Booooo


----------



## IceDragonVisy (Jan 19, 2008)

Ceceil Felias said:
			
		

> No, as far as I can tell this is a by-the-book case of "'Current' event that's no longer current". No need to treat it as something more than it is, especially if you're just bringing in paranoia.



I meant sour lemons as in a zombie.


----------



## Ceceil Felias (Jan 19, 2008)

Weapon Yoshi said:
			
		

> Ceceil Felias said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh.

...I don't get it. D:


----------



## IceDragonVisy (Jan 19, 2008)

Ceceil Felias said:
			
		

> Oh.
> 
> ...I don't get it. D:



I suppose that's what I get for being the only one to read the Doom novels. Zombies are said to have a sour lemon smell in them.

...crap, now we're getting off-topic.


----------



## Ceceil Felias (Jan 19, 2008)

Oh, that. Yeah, I haven't read the Doom novels, myself. XD

And... wait, there's a topic?


----------



## uncia (Feb 12, 2008)

uncia said:
			
		

> Summercat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And _*bump*_ again, as expected...

The UK, this time, following on from France; albeit still early stages.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7240234.stm
Last Updated: Tuesday, 12 February 2008, 14:28 GMT 

*Illegal downloaders 'face UK ban'*

_A draft consultation suggests internet service providers would be required to take action over users who access pirated material.
But the government is stressing that plans are at an early stage and it is still working on final proposals.
Six million people a year are estimated to download files illegally in the UK.
Music and film companies say that the illegal downloads cost them millions of pounds in lost revenues. 
The government proposals were first reported by the Times newspaper.

Voluntary scheme

The Times suggested that broadband firms which failed to enforce the rules could be prosecuted, and the details of customers suspected of making illegal downloads made available to the courts.
According to the Times, the draft paper states: "We will move to legislate to require internet service providers to take action on illegal file sharing." 
Some of the UK's biggest internet providers, such as BT, Virgin and Tiscali have been in talks with the entertainment industry over introducing a voluntary scheme for policing pirate activity, but no agreement has been reached.
So far, they have failed to resolve how disputed allegations would be arbitrated - for example, when customers claim other people have been "piggybacking" on their internet service.

'No liability'

The Internet Service Providers Association said data protection laws would prevent providers from looking at the content of information sent over their networks. 
"ISPs are no more able to inspect and filter every single packet passing across their network than the Post Office is able to open every envelope," the association said.
"ISPs bear no liability for illegal file sharing as the content is not hosted on their servers," it added.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport said that early drafts of the document had been circulated among stakeholders.
"The content and proposals for the strategy have been significantly developed since then and a comprehensive plan to bolster the UK's creative industries will be published shortly," it added.
"We will not comment on the content of the leaked document."_

=> http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article3353387.ece (for referred newspaper article)


----------



## hypr (Feb 14, 2008)

In Canada Mp3 download are legal, but one must face caution with it as if one downloads too much their connection will obviously be capped, however Limewire and uTorrent usually change the receive ports and ISPs check low numbered ports as they are the most commonly used, higher ones up to 16365 aren't checked which makes things harder for ISPs to clamp down.


----------



## greg-the-fox (Feb 24, 2008)

They'd better start building a lot more jails then...


----------



## rexar (Feb 25, 2008)

Lobbyists piss me off.

They are why we have this twisted, schizophrenic system of laws.  The wealthier you are, the more power you have to twist the law against fellow citizens.  What would get me in more trouble, getting caught pirating Microsoft Office or smashing a random windshield with a pipe?  Why would a petty, intangible "violation of intellectual property" which annoys rich people be more heinous than a senseless act of violence?  Liberty and justice for all, right?


----------



## skulltoe (Mar 4, 2008)

*Stops seeding Maya*

Yeah, piracy is bad.

Haha, but really, this is ridiculous. Did you hear the RIAA wanted to sue people for copying music from CDs to their computers, even for PERSONAL use? It's just getting out of hand...


----------



## Bokracroc (Mar 4, 2008)

Move to Russia, they have all factories for producing pirated games and music.


----------



## uncia (Mar 4, 2008)

uncia said:
			
		

> And _*bump*_ again, as expected...
> 
> The UK, this time, following on from France; albeit still early stages.
> <clip>


I forgot to add the p.s. to that, where some of the UK ISPs in those "discussions" with the government politely declined to act as hall monitors... (Good to read, at least for now, even though many of those still also have an agenda to run re. those customers who "overuse" their 'net access).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7246403.stm
Net firms reject monitoring role
By Mark Ward
Technology Correspondent, BBC News website
Last Updated: Friday, 15 February 2008, 13:22 GMT

_UK net firms are resisting government suggestions that they should do more to monitor what customers do online.

The industry association for net providers said legal and technical barriers prohibit them from being anything other than a "mere conduit".
The declaration comes as the government floats the idea of persistent pirates being denied net access.
And in the US one net supplier has admitted to "degrading" traffic from some file-sharing networks.

Traffic control

Net firms have been stung into defining their position by the emergence this week of a draft government consultation document that suggests ISPs should be drafted in to the fight against piracy.
It suggested that people who persistently download and share copyrighted material could have their net access removed.
A spokesman for the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) said the 2002 E-Commerce Regulations defined net firms as "mere conduits" and not responsible for the contents of the traffic flowing across their networks. 
He added that other laws on surveillance explicitly prohibited ISPs from inspecting the contents of data packets unless forced to do so by a warrant.
The spokesman said technical issues also made it hard for net firms to take action against specific types of traffic.
For instance, he said, while some people use peer-to-peer networks to download copyrighted material many commercial services, such as Napster and the BBC's iPlayer, use file-sharing technology to distribute music and TV legally.
In the US, Comcast admitted in documents filed with the Federal Communications Commission that it does "degrade" some traffic from peer-to-peer networks.
The spokesman added: "We know that all ISPs are involved in traffic management but that is to optimise the service for all their customers."
A spokesman for Virgin Media said its traffic management system came into play during peak times - between 1600 and 2100.
Action was taken against any customer whose usage exceeded a limit associated with their tariff during that five hour window, he said.
"If you exceed that threshold we will drop your speed for five hours from when the excess is recorded," he said. 
Andrew Ferguson, an editor at Think Broadband, said net service firms manage their bandwidth in many different ways.
Almost all, he said, manage traffic but at certain times impose other systems to smooth out the peaks.
"Some firms will happily let you use as much as you like but will charge you accordingly, and business products that are more expensive often allow unlimited use," he said.
Others impose charges on customers who regularly exceed their download limits and a few manage their system so users cannot exceed a monthly download cap. The limits that firms impose can also vary widely.
"Any ISP that does not do traffic management is not going to stay in business very long," said Gavin Johns, managing director of net management firm Epitiro.
He said it was essential to ensure that services which have to be delivered in real time, such as voice and streaming video, were usable.
"Different applications use different ports and have different payloads," said Mr Johns, "They look completely different from a network point of view."
"If they didn't do traffic management we would all complain," he said.
Mr Ferguson from Think Broadband said although traffic management was common, net providers imposed it in contrasting ways.
"What varies is the degree it impacts users and the openness of providers in telling users it exists and what is and is not managed," he told the BBC News website.
"Traffic management has a poor reputation as in many cases it is used to keep bandwidth costs down for a provider with little respect to the consumers' wishes," he said._


----------



## net-cat (Mar 4, 2008)

Huh. In both the Comcast and the UK ISPs cases, I see the same forces at work...

Comcast: "We don't want to pay to upgrade our aging infrastructure or our limited back-end connection speed, so we're going to degrade our customers net experience."

UK ISPs: "It would cost an inordinately large amount of money to filter and store logs of everything our customers do."

Business is funny like that...


----------

