BoomFlag

Seen on Fark:

Regarding my recent post about the proposed Congressional legislation that would make the DMCA look like a slap on the wrist, I found some statistics to demonstrate how badly this whole copyright infringement issue has been blown out of proportion.

Consider that under the proposed new law, non-commercial distribution of copyrighted material worth more than $2,500 (in other words, all movies and music) carries a maximum federal prison sentence of ten years. That’s 120 months. Now consider the average prison terms for other federal crimes:

• embezzlement — 7 months
• bribery — 10 months
• fraud — 14 months
• manslaughter — 33 months
• racketeering and extortion — 72 months
• sexual abuse — 73 months
• arson — 87 months

That’s right: you could rape or kill someone and get off lighter than if you’re caught sharing the latest Disney DVD with a friend. Think about that.

“My fellow Americans… only 32% of you approve of the job I’m doing as President…”

That’s right, kids, Bush has dropped below the one-in-three mark. How much worse can it get?

“A lot of the reason the iPod exists is because of federal research dollars.”

— George W. Bush

(Umm, what?)

Lately I’ve been noticing funny photography on web sites. Today is no exception: I noticed this woman on the home page of a site– is it just me, or does she look like she’s heavily tranquilized or something?

The RIAA and the MPAA are probably wetting their collective pants in glee as Congress is set to begin preliminary hearings on a new bill called the Intellectual Property Protection Act. Introduced by Representative Lamar Smith and backed by perennial favorite Alberto Gonzales, the bill would expand the powers of the abysmal Digital Millennium Copyright Act by adding such things as:

• Copyright infringement would earn you a prison sentence of ten years, instead of the measly five you’d get now. Repeat offenders get twenty years.
• The FBI and other government agencies will have (surprise!) expanded wiretapping authority in their unending pursuit of the evil copyright pirates.
• Copyright violations could be pursued as criminal cases, even if the copyright was never registered with the U.S. Copyright Office
• Possession of anti-circumvention tools– such as software designed to decrypt DVD’s– would be a criminal act, even if the tools were never used to break copyright.
• Attempts to commit copyright infringement– even if they never came to fruition– would be federal crimes with up to a ten-year prison sentence.
• Provides $20 million in funding for a new FBI copyright enforcement unit.

It’s staggering to think of how far our elected representatives will go to protect the special interests of a few well-funded groups. Consider, as an example, the FBI copyright enforcement unit, which will be funded with tax dollars but will in reality be doing the work that copyright holders should be doing. If the RIAA or MPAA suspect infringement, it is their duty to prove it in court. Although I agree the FBI may need to be involved in high-profile (meaning massive) piracy operations, the government has no right to take our money and spend it on behalf of these trade groups.

As a Linux user, I occasionally use software to play DVD’s on my computer. These are legal DVD’s I’ve purchased and own, and the software is open-source and not bound by commercial licenses. But since it’s been reverse-engineered, it’s illegal– both under the DMCA and this new proposed legislation. Apparently I’m risking ten years in the Big House because I want to watch a legitimate DVD on my computer. Moreover, even if I wasn’t using the software, my mere possession of it would be a criminal act under the new law. Amazing.

Perhaps the most obnoxious part of the whole business is the endorsement from Attorney General Gonzales:

Unbelievable. He really thinks terrorists are sharing pirated copies of the latest movie or song to fund their activities? Wow. But then again, I shouldn’t be the least bit surprised that Gonzales (and, in fact, the entire Bush administration) came up with the tired terrorist argument. Apparently everything in today’s world is about terrorism.

Or defending corporate interests. Whatever.

The RIAA’s unbelievably ignorant efforts to combat music piracy continue their streak as this week they sue a family in Rockmart, Georgia who doesn’t own a computer.

According to the federal lawsuit filed by the RIAA, the family “has used, and continues to use, an online media distribution system”. They’re accused of sharing such classics as Poison’s “I Won’t Forget You” and Whitney Houston’s “Saving All My Love for You”.

It’ll be interesting to see this one play out in court. Hah.

The RIAA took a bit of a PR hit lately, when their case against 13-year-old Brittany Chan was dismissed by the court.

In late 2004, the RIAA’s file-sharing sniffers thought they detected some illegal downloaded songs at the Chan residence. They filed a lawsuit against Candy Chan (Brittany’s mother) but she insisted she hadn’t done anything. Eventually they dismissed their case.

Then the lawyers came back to attack Brittany, but since she’s a minor they included a requirement of guardian ad litem so they could hold her mother responsible for her actions. Because this is a complicated (and expensive) process, the court asked the RIAA’s dogs to provide a plan for how to pay for the guardianship. The RIAA responded by saying they shouldn’t have to pay anything because their case was so strong. Never mind “innocent until proven guilty”… such trivialties of the law are beneath the RIAA.

In the end, the court dismissed the case because the RIAA never answered the court’s question. Bummer for them.

Idiots.

“You’ve achieved success in your field when you don’t know whether what you’re doing is work or play.”

— Warren Beatty

I’m registering for the Bolder Boulder run– my annual 10km Memorial Day adventure– and I noticed that the home page has a photo of a bunch of the A-wave (read “fast”) runners at the start line.

And, as you’d probably expect, there’s also a gorilla.