News Regulate Internet: What Does it Mean & Why is it Important?

[Evo]

What evidence do you have for things being broken? We don't struggle to prosecute people who break the law where I live despite the fact that copyright infringement isn't theft. What need is there to redefine theft? I'm really struggling to see why it needs to be redefined and you are yet to present a shred of evidence to support your position.

In the US, there is already the No Electronic Theft Act.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.2265.ENR:

Notice it says theft? I don't see the point in nitpicking over words though. It's just amazing that without the word, some people don't get the point that it is illegal and prosecutable. And we're talking about the US in this thread, unless otherwise specified.

What is the No Electronic Theft Act?
Congress enacted the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act in 1997 to facilitate prosecution of copyright violation on the Internet. The NET Act makes it a federal crime to reproduce, distribute, or share copies of electronic copyrighted works such as songs, movies, games, or software programs, even if the person copying or distributing the material acts without commercial purpose and/or receives no private financial gain. Prior to this law, people who intentionally distributed copied software over the Internet did not face criminal penalties if they did not profit from their actions. Electronic copyright infringement carries a maximum penalty of three years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

The NET Act is applicable in situations such as running a file sharing application with outgoing transfers enabled, hosting files on a web account, transferring files through IRC, and other methods of making copyrighted material available over networks.

http://kb.iu.edu/data/aliv.html

This law is very aggressive since it allows people that have no intention of profiting to be prosecuted for federal criminal charges.

Perhaps this law is sufficient.

 

[Evo]

Here is a very interesting explanation.

"Promoting Investment and Protecting Commerce Online: The ART Act, the NET Act and Illegal Streaming"

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat060111.html

 

[nazarbaz]

What? You aren't convinced by the logic of intellectual property? What exactly are you saying here?

For me, a work of art is not a product that you can sell and buy for a fee. When you've done it, it's not yours anymore. I'm not going to justify it : there's no rational foundation to it in a capitalist society where ownership is a matter of survival. The relationship that this model has set in stone between an artist and its audience is coarse though. Not less vulgar than this situation where poor people and kids have no access to culture.
Do you know this Tool song, "Hooker with a penis" ?

 

[Evo]

For me, a work of art is not a product that you can sell and buy for a fee. When you've done it, it's not yours anymore.

Well, that's just nonsense. Of course a work of art can be bought and sold. What do you mean

When you've done it, it's not yours anymore

Are you just making stuff up as you post? We don't allow nonsense posts or misinformation here.

This law ought to really upset you.

For instance, a painter may insist on proper attribution of his painting and in some instances may sue the owner of the physical painting for destroying the painting even if the owner of the painting lawfully owned it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act

I suggest that you actually read the rules to which you agreed when you registered before posting again.

 

[Galteeth]

For me,

I could be wrong, but it seems the poster was making a statement of personal moral feeling rather then commenting on the law as it is written.

 

[nazarbaz]

I agree : it probably doesn't make sense in your thinking framework and that's basically what I said... It's not meaningless, though...

 

[Evo]

I agree : it probably doesn't make sense in your thinking framework and that's basically what I said... It's not meaningless, though...

But it is nonsense. Just becasue it's how you *feel* doesn't make it sensible. And by law, even after you sell it, it may still be yours to control.

You really should do some research before you post.

 

[Galteeth]

Did you know that when you visit a website that your information is captured?

People should be more aware of this, and getting back to the general topic of internet regulation, I think some of the concern from the citizen side has to do to how much information is being kept without many people realizing it. Of course with a little bit of care you can prevent websites from storing information about you and remain "invisible", but most people don't have a good grasp of just how large a footprint their activity leaves. I disagree though that the honus is on website owners to not collect data, after all they have a right to make a profit. There are programs out there that allow you to use the internet anonymously, and I think that once people (the ones who are paying attention anyway start to see their internet activity used against them, more and more people will shield themselves in various manners.

 

[nazarbaz]

But it is nonsense. Just becasue it's how you *feel* doesn't make it sensible. And by law, even after you sell it, it may still be yours to control.

You really should do some research before you post.

It makes a lot of sense to the artists I know...

 

[Evo]

It makes a lot of sense to the artists I know...

Then it doesn't concern the thread topic.

 

[Drakkith]

For me, a work of art is not a product that you can sell and buy for a fee. When you've done it, it's not yours anymore.

The issue arises because a great many people don't hold this view, hence copyright laws.

Also I'd like to remind anyone reading this that this thread isn't just about artists and music. Film, TV, animation, software, artwork, and more are all relevant.

 

[nanosiborg]

What does "regulation" mean first of all?

I've heard arguments for and against regulating the internet, and I have no idea what the issues are beyond the usual ramblings of morons in online places like facebook. Why would regulation be bad for the net? Obviously this isn't a black or white situation, or else it wouldn't be an issue.

I suppose you now have a better idea what it means. Several examples of "internet regulation" have been presented.

I wonder if a site like, eg., YouTube would or could ever be shut down.

Even with the shutting down of hosting service websites like Megaupload, it seems to be as easy now as ever to download just about any music, movie, and print stuff for free.

What about populist movements 'promoted' by the existence and use of social networking sites such as facebook. Could facebook ever be shut down "in a national interest"?

 

[TheMadMonk]

In the US, there is already the No Electronic Theft Act.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.2265.ENR:

Notice it says theft? I don't see the point in nitpicking over words though. It's just amazing that without the word, some people don't get the point that it is illegal and prosecutable. And we're talking about the US in this thread, unless otherwise specified.



http://kb.iu.edu/data/aliv.html

This law is very aggressive since it allows people that have no intention of profiting to be prosecuted for federal criminal charges.

Perhaps this law is sufficient.

You've lost me. You say the definition of theft absolutely must be changed but then tell me that in the US it is considered theft anyway. Why must it be changed if you acknowledge the law is already sufficient?

I do also apologise for commenting on a topic relating to US affairs without being an American.

 

[Evo]

You've lost me. You say the definition of theft absolutely must be changed but then tell me that in the US it is considered theft anyway. Why must it be changed if you acknowledge the law is already sufficient?

The information that copyright infringement isn't theft is outdated and needs to be reworded to include theft. Copyright infringement refers to a very broad area and many types of products. Not all infringement would be theft, but in the sense that we are discussing it in this thread, it is theft, and it seems that the US government agrees. It appears that way too many people still seem to think it's not theft, and that needs to be corrected.

 

[SixNein]

People should be more aware of this, and getting back to the general topic of internet regulation, I think some of the concern from the citizen side has to do to how much information is being kept without many people realizing it. Of course with a little bit of care you can prevent websites from storing information about you and remain "invisible", but most people don't have a good grasp of just how large a footprint their activity leaves. I disagree though that the honus is on website owners to not collect data, after all they have a right to make a profit. There are programs out there that allow you to use the internet anonymously, and I think that once people (the ones who are paying attention anyway start to see their internet activity used against them, more and more people will shield themselves in various manners.

Web sites can only collect a limited amount of information unless you volunteer more. The default information that they collect is needed for website management. For example, they are going to know your IP address. And they are always going to know an IP address because IP addresses are required for identification of machines across networks. They will know what URL you wish to request, what kind of browser and operating system your using, and what URL refereed you to the current page. And all of these things are important for website management.

You have to volunteer your personal information.

 

[SixNein]

The information that copyright infringement isn't theft is outdated and needs to be reworded to include theft. Copyright infringement refers to a very broad area and many types of products. Not all infringement would be theft, but in the sense that we are discussing it in this thread, it is theft, and it seems that the US government agrees. It appears that way too many people still seem to think it's not theft, and that needs to be corrected.

Please link me to a supreme court citation for the claim that the US agrees. You linked a title of a bill, but the title of a bill isn't law and has no standing in law.

And you have yet to demonstrate why anything is needed:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothy...orry-about-the-decline-of-the-music-industry/

 

[nanosiborg]

Please link me to a supreme court citation for the claim that the US agrees. You linked a title of a bill, but the title of a bill isn't law and has no standing in law.

And you have yet to demonstrate why anything is needed:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothy...orry-about-the-decline-of-the-music-industry/

SixNein, I agree with your, and certain others', take on this aspect of proposed increases in internet regulation.

The most wealthy beneficiaries of retail sales of various forms of entertainment (especially music and movies) are arguing for regulations to further limit free downloading based on the assumption that the people doing the free downloading (or some percentage of them) would have paid the retail price for certain entertainments had they not been able to download them for free, and are thus 'stealing' money from artists and companies -- which seems to me to be, possibly, a baseless assumption, and therefore an empty argument.

What are the speculative numbers that the recording and movie industries attach to their claim? How do they get those numbers?
Is it possible that none of the people downloading copies of copyrighted works would have paid retail price for them?

SOPA and PIPA would cost the government tens of millions of dollars to implement had they passed. Would the movie and recording industries really be better off if this sort of internet regulatory legislation passed?

 

[Evo]

Please link me to a supreme court citation for the claim that the US agrees. You linked a title of a bill, but the title of a bill isn't law and has no standing in law.

It is law.

The United States No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), a federal law passed in 1997, provides for criminal prosecution of individuals who engage in copyright infringement under certain circumstances, even when there is no monetary profit or commercial benefit from the infringement. Maximum penalties can be five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. The NET Act also raised statutory damages by 50%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act

 

[nanosiborg]

Obviously not all would have paid for it, but probably a large number would have. If it's free, albeit illegally, I'd dare say more harm than good is done. Something we won't know. Even otherwise honest people will download something if it's "free", many not even realizing it's illegal.

I admit I like to watch or listen to things online, like on youtube. Some apparently violated copyright because they were later yanked. I, however, DO like to own copies and do buy most of what I watch or listen to online. I'm planning to buy several DVD's of shows this christmas that I could download illegally. Just call me honest.

I have nothing against people just watching or listening online as long as they don't download it.

It seems quite clear to me that the basis of the movie and music industries' backing of SOPA and PIPA is their (and your) assumption that "probably a large number would have" bought the works they downloaded for free if they couldn't download them for free.

I'm just asking how they (and you) know that, and would like to see what speculative numbers you attach to that assumption and how you got them.

 

[Evo]

It seems quite clear to me that the basis of the movie and music industries' backing of SOPA and PIPA is their (and your) assumption that "probably a large number would have" bought the works they downloaded for free if they couldn't download them for free.

I'm just asking how they (and you) know that, and would like to see what speculative numbers you attach to that assumption and how you got them.

Any downloading of these items is illegal, only the amount is currently taken into consideration when considering whether to prosecute. It doesn't matter what percent would have paid for them.

Do you believe that theft is ok?

 

[nanosiborg]

Obviously not all would have paid for it, but probably a large number would have.

How do you know this? What number are you talking about? Citation? Evidence?

I have nothing against people just watching or listening online as long as they don't download it.

This makes no sense. If you're streaming it for free, then you're downloading it, ie., in your view, 'stealing' it. Uh oh!

 

[nanosiborg]

Any downloading of these items is illegal, only the amount is currently taken into consideration when considering whether to prosecute. It doesn't matter what percent would have paid for them.

Do you believe that theft is ok?

It seems that, by you own admission, you're a copyright infringer. Do you believe that's ok?

 

[Evo]

It seems that, by you own admission, you're a copyright infringer. Do you believe that's ok?

I don't download.

This makes no sense. If you're streaming it for free, then you're downloading it, ie., in your view, 'stealing' it. Uh oh!

I don't use sites known to provide illegal content. If it's available for free on the originator's website, services like hulu, or youtube, which is carefully policed for infringement, I will watch, but I rarely do so.

Also, stop the false accusations.

 

[nanosiborg]

I don't download.

I don't use sites known to provide illegal content. If it's available for free on the originator's website, services like hulu, or youtube, which is carefully policed for infringement, I will watch, but I rarely do so.

Also, stop the false accusations.

You still haven't provided any evidence for your assertion that "Obviously not all would have paid for it, but probably a large number would have." Until you do, can I regard your assertion as misinformation?

Why is it important? Because, for one thing, if copyright protected works are downloaded only by people who wouldn't or couldn't have bought them, then the proposed SOPA and PIPA are unnecessary extensions of governmental internet regulation, and a gross waste of tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money.

 

[Evo]

You still haven't provided any evidence for your assertion that "Obviously not all would have paid for it, but probably a large number would have." Until you do, can I regard your assertion as misinformation?

Here you go.

According to new statistics from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), approximately 95 percent of all music downloads on the Internet are currently illegal, in that they infringe on copyright and cut the flow of cash to companies and artists. As a result, revenues have dropped globally by some 7 percent last year alone. Peer-to-peer (P2P) site representatives say that trying to hold on to obsolete copyright laws in the modern setup of the Internet proves that the companies have no real understanding of how the system works.[/quote]

http://news.softpedia.com/news/95-Percent-of-Online-Music-Downloads-Are-Illegal-102185.shtml

Why is it important? Because, for one thing, if copyright protected works are downloaded only by people who wouldn't or couldn't have bought them, then the proposed SOPA and PIPA are unnecessary extensions of governmental internet regulation, and a gross waste of tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money.

But they aren't stolen only by people that would not have bought them, IMO. Unless you have proof of that.

Can't buy them? Give up a trip to McDonald's if you want a CD.

You sound very young, I'm guessing teens to early 20's and grew up with the internet?

 

[nanosiborg]

Here you go.

According to new statistics from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), approximately 95 percent of all music downloads on the Internet are currently illegal, in that they infringe on copyright and cut the flow of cash to companies and artists. As a result, revenues have dropped globally by some 7 percent last year alone. Peer-to-peer (P2P) site representatives say that trying to hold on to obsolete copyright laws in the modern setup of the Internet proves that the companies have no real understanding of how the system works.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/95-Percent-of-Online-Music-Downloads-Are-Illegal-102185.shtml

The article doesn't correlate the global decrease of 7% in the IFPI's 2011 revenues with internet piracy. That decrease (if it's a fact, which it might not be) could have been a result of general global economic woes rather than illegal downloading.

Thus, assertions like ...

Because people share music illegally and don't pay for the albums and tracks they own, they cause massive dents in profits for companies, labels, and music artists ...

... and your assertion that ...

Obviously not all would have paid for it, but probably a large number would have.

... might be considered misinformation.

But they aren't stolen only by people that would not have bought them, IMO.

But there's no way to know. Is there?

As long as that's the case, then the arguments of the music, film, etc. industries for extending governmental internet regulation by legislation like SOPA and PIPA are vacuous.

 

[SixNein]

It is law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act

It is the title of the bill that became law that mentions theft. They could have called the bill anything under the sun. The name of a bill is irrelevant.

People who commit copyright infringement are NOT committing theft. Even if we consider copyright to be property (its not, but for the sake of argument..), the closes thing in property law that comes to copyright infringement is trespassing. When someone commits copyright infringement, they are trespassing on exclusive rights of another. If they were committing theft, they would have stole the copyright itself.

There is just a huge difference in "trespassing" on land and "stealing" the land itself.

Besides the above...

The poor artists just aren't getting heard in government...

1982: Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act: Increased criminal penalties for infringing records, tapes and films from $25k & 2 years in jail to $250,000 and 5 years in jail. Also... made it so that first-time offenders could get the maximum.
1984: Record Rental Amendment of 1984: Outlawed music rentals (have you ever wondered why there were no Blockbusters or Netflixes for music?)
1990: Copyright Remedy Clarification Act: Allowed copyright holders to sue states for copyright infringement (before that, states could claim sovereign immunity)
1990: Computer Software Rental Amendments Act: Outlawed software rentals
1992: Audio Home Recording Act: Mandated DRM on certain digital audio devices (mainly DAT), added a royalty on such devices.
1994: Uruguay Round Agreements Act: Not only did it seize works out of the public domain and put them under copyright (this was what was challenged in the recent Golan case), but it made it a criminal offense to bootleg concerts (audio or video).
1995: The Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act: Created a new "performance" right for copyright holders concerning digital "performances."
1996: Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1996: Expanded racketeering laws to include criminal copyright infringement, as well as "trafficking" in computer software, documentation or packaging, as well as trafficking in movies or audiovisual works. Also let the government seize property associated with these activities (precursor to domain seizures...).
1997: No Electronic Theft (NET) Act: Decreased the threshold for what counts as criminal infringement (such as taking out the monetary profit requirement).
1998: Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act: You should know this one. Expanded copyright terms by 20 years.
1998: Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA): Again, you may have heard of it. Created anti-circumvention rules and the notice-and-takedown system for online infringement, among many other things.
1999: Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999: Massively increased statutory damages for infringement
2004: Intellectual Property Protection and Courts Amendments Act: Set up penalties (civil and criminal) for counterfeit labels, documentation and packaging in association with copyrighted goods (yes, separate from the content itself). Also lowered the bar to show willful infringement.
2005: Family Entertainment and Copyright Act: Criminalizes recording of movies in theaters and also let's theaters detain people merely suspected of recording in theaters. Criminalizes releasing a work online before it's been officially released (if it's "being prepared" for commercial distribution).
2008: Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act: Increased civil penalties for infringement. Increased government seizure & forfeiture powers (which is how the government currently justifies its questionable domain seizures) and created a job in the White House to focus on greater enforcement.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...assed-15-anti-piracy-laws-last-30-years.shtml

We should expand copyrights every 2 years I think... =(

They have IP so strong now that one can get sued for sneezing. Here is an example: The sony root kit.

Even after it was published, anti-virus companies were scared to death to remove it because circumvention of security of copyright protected content is now considered copyright infringement.

McAfee didn't add detection code until Nov. 9, and as of Nov. 15 it doesn't remove the rootkit, only the cloaking device. The company admits on its web page that this is a lousy compromise. "McAfee detects, removes and prevents reinstallation of XCP." That's the cloaking code. "Please note that removal will not impair the copyright-protection mechanisms installed from the CD. There have been reports of system crashes possibly resulting from uninstalling XCP." Thanks for the warning.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/11/sonys_drm_rootk.html

n the past, security researchers would notify the vendors first of any bugs, but now they're afraid to disclose such flaws without first consulting a lawyer, Felten said. He added that the DMCA has discouraged security researchers from embarking on new projects and has driven some away from the field. (Felten once was threatened with a DMCA lawsuit by the recording industry for exposing weaknesses in a music-watermarking scheme.)

http://news.cnet.com/2100-7348_3-6056616.html

 

[TheMadMonk]

The information that copyright infringement isn't theft is outdated and needs to be reworded to include theft. Copyright infringement refers to a very broad area and many types of products. Not all infringement would be theft, but in the sense that we are discussing it in this thread, it is theft, and it seems that the US government agrees. It appears that way too many people still seem to think it's not theft, and that needs to be corrected.

If it isn't theft then you can't really blame people for thinking it isn't. I'm also still struggling to see why it must be considered theft, you haven't really explained why you think that.

 

[Drakkith]

Even if it isn't "theft", its just as wrong as knowingly buying cheap products from someone who has either stolen them or reproduced them illegally. Would you buy a 50 inch TV for 1/4 the normal price that you KNOW is stolen? Or physical copies of software that you know had been reproduced and burnt onto the CD? Sure, some people who bought these products probably wouldn't have bought the legal ones due to price, BUT IT'S STILL WRONG. And if you don't believe that it is, then I think you really need to look your morals. No amount of justification will change that in my opinion. Now, the specific bills that have been brought up may or may not be the best, and you can say they that they lead to all kinds of nonsense by governments, but that is a separate issue.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Here you go.

According to new statistics from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), approximately 95 percent of all music downloads on the Internet are currently illegal, in that they infringe on copyright and cut the flow of cash to companies and artists. As a result, revenues have dropped globally by some 7 percent last year alone. Peer-to-peer (P2P) site representatives say that trying to hold on to obsolete copyright laws in the modern setup of the Internet proves that the companies have no real understanding of how the system works.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/95-Percent-of-Online-Music-Downloads-Are-Illegal-102185.shtml

But they aren't stolen only by people that would not have bought them, IMO. Unless you have proof of that.

Can't buy them? Give up a trip to McDonald's if you want a CD.

You sound very young, I'm guessing teens to early 20's and grew up with the internet?

You know, I was infracted for posting a link to a site that was of dubious quality and which possessed obvious bias. Then you post a statistic regarding file sharing from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, AKA the world-wide arm of the music industry. Seriously? How about one from the RIAA too?

Fact of the matter is, the music industry needs to evolve or die. The days of selling albums is over. There's still merchandise and touring - you can't torrent a concert experience or t-shirt. They need to think of albums as the ultimate promo scheme.