Downloading = Terrorism: - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

AngelicVampire · 05-03-2005, 03:10 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/new...474673,00.html

Quote:

Illicit downloading is now tantamount to domestic terrorism

A little sneaky law-making - and suddenly illicit downloading and file-sharing is a federal crime in the US

John Sutherland
Monday May 2, 2005
The Guardian

Interesting battle lines were drawn with the family entertainment and copyright bill, 2005, signed into law by President Bush last week. American drafters habitually smuggle in tough regulation under the skirts of something beguilingly innocent. On the face of it, the "Family Movie Act" (which the new measure incorporates) is all motherhood and apple pie.

Specifically, the act opens the way for companies like ClearPlay legally to sell their product. The firm operates out of Utah (the most straitlaced state in the union). You get a DVD, from Blockbusters or wherever, and ClearPlay's little black box, sitting like a benign leech on your DVD player, sucks out "objectionable" material of a violent or sexual nature.

Fourteen levels of filter are available. Teams of "movie professionals" have pre-identified questionable scenes and dialogue which are duly muted or skipped. ClearPlay monitors all the latest releases and most in-stock titles. The black box can be fitted, like a chastity belt, on junior's bedroom TV. It can be programmed to peremptorily block anything certified PG13 or harder. The package costs a mere $80 a year.

There was anxiety that the bill might open the way to ad-skipping - something that Congress (at the behest of commercial lobbyists) dislikes. The last thing lawmakers want is to keep the honest salesman from getting his foot in the door.

That settled, the act was passed with acclaim. What congressman was going to oppose family values? ClearPlay's stock soared. Senator Orrin G Hatch (Republican, Utah), the moral dinosaur who had introduced the measure, hailed it as a mighty "shield" for the American home. The Brady Bunch could sit down of a night and watch The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Mysteriously, of course, the movie might only last half an hour - but, early to bed, early to rise.

Hatch noted in passing that there were, attached to his family bill, some piddling "intellectual property" provisions relating to "rampant piracy" from the internet. In fact, tagged-on clauses now make illicit downloading and file-sharing tantamount to domestic terrorism.

It is now a federal crime to use a video camera to record films in cinemas, punishable by up to three years in prison for the first offence. It is 10 years for sharing a movie or a song prior to its commercial release. These draconian penalties were clearly the result of lobbying by the Motion Picture Association and the Recording Industry Association of America. Without the smokescreen of family protection, such excessive penalties would never have passed into law - at least not without opposition.

One breach in the copyright dam is staunched. Another, even more gaping, opens up.

Technological advances in music-delivery systems have developed at bewildering speed over the last five years: from Walkman, through MiniDisc player, to iPod. Apple's device is itself increasing in power by 20 gigabytes a year. The latest models can hold nigh on 10,000 tracks: all instantly retrieved, shuffled, and playlisted.

Nature abhors a vacuum. Where can you get a thousand albums' worth of music to fill the iPod's vast archival capacity? Commercial downloading will cost five grand. And there is all that time and hassle involved in the loading procedure.

Students simply swap archives. One loaded Apple laptop in a college dorm will stock any number of iPods in neighbouring bedrooms. Crossloading of this kind, without charge, is, I think, not illegal. But it is not merely the latest hits one wants. Nor does one want someone else's preferences. I am fond of 1950s jazz. My iPod could contain the whole of the Vogue, Blue Note, Vanguard, and Verve catalogues. But where would I find those gems? Not in a student dorm.

Three solutions are emerging. Last month www.jayci.com launched its range of "pre-populated" Super iPods. Jayci will preload music of your choice at $1.29 a track. Alternatively, they'll customise your iPod with a package of 100 tracks in some preferred style (blues, classical or whatever) for $119. The Jayci concierge service is convenient but pricey.

For the more freebootingly inclined, pre-owned and pre-populated iPods are appearing on eBay. How long before "faux" pre-owned iPods appear, artfully customised for a whole spectrum of tastes, at budget prices? Not long. Nor will it be long before the lawmakers realise that copyright is being massively evaded. Before the legal chopper comes down, perhaps I'll get my 50s jazz archive. Any help in that direction appreciated.

Seems a little overboard, does anyone actually support treating downloading (theft at worst, most of the time its stuff people would not buy anyway) as terrorism?

I suppose its also linked, would/do you purchase what you download (basically a taster) or do you only download stuff that you would never purchase?

Personally I buy what I download (basically if I would watch it twice then I buy it, it seems fair to the industry that they get something for my enjoyment). I would however like to see movies for download legally (spends too much time on computer), say £3 for a 700Mb CD rip, £4 for a 1.5Gb rip and £6 for a DVD rip because its the bargain basement (£5ish) for a DVD/VHS that makes me purchase movies that I would like to see once but probably never again (and owning the thing is nice)... example is Road to Eldorado by Disney (now own it on VHS... £2.50).

superiorrain · 05-03-2005, 04:51 AM

I'm currently doing my dissertation on this very topic. Of course downloads have affected the industry but it was in many ways the industries fault. Spent years pissing about trying to stop it all, no innovation game from them what so ever. Then when they do offer legal downloads, it comes at a price, which in my opinion is still way to high. That and 'new music' being produced is becoming less and less, along with radio stations becoming even more restrictive on what they play. It seems to me that a combination of these things has hurt the industry more than downloading has.

I think that the music industry has to follow the model of one other business. The only other billion dollar business around, that consumers pay way over the odds for, when they could get it for free, is the bottled water industry. Package it up right, put the service behind it and give the wookie what he wants at a reasonable price. If they achieve this then maybe more of us will turn to their legal, highly highly highly profitable download services.

flamingdog · 05-03-2005, 05:10 AM

When companies like EMI are dropping nearly £30million to lame ducks like Mariah Carey to make her go away, with only one (flopped) album of her original £70million contract fulfilled, I have very little sympathy for the record industry. Fuck you, EMI.

Carno · 05-03-2005, 05:21 AM

Does anyone else have a feeling that the music industry is eventually going to go down in flames?

samcol · 05-03-2005, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carn

Does anyone else have a feeling that the music industry is eventually going to go down in flames?

I'm almost hoping they will. We'll hear better music if it happens in my opinion. The musicians hate the industry, and so do we. The music and movie industry could use some serious overhauling.

Glory's Sun · 05-03-2005, 05:41 AM

There's no way the penalites should be that high. I understand the RIAA and MPA's frustration but at the same time they have to realize that they fucked it up. If they were to offer items at a cheaper rate and actually put some good shit on the market this whole thing would never have grown to the proportions that it did. Downloading = Terrorism--- I call bullshit

JamesB · 05-03-2005, 08:33 AM

Wow - this is the DMCA on steroids. It is amazing the fear mongering - and the law-makers who use it.

lurkette · 05-03-2005, 08:36 AM

Except now apparently it is.

snowy · 05-03-2005, 08:45 AM

I usually use downloading music to preview things I think I might like--if I do really like them, I go and buy them. I only burn copies of CDs I wouldn't buy (ie Justin Timberlake--he's got enough money, thank you) or CDs I can't get ahold of (Muse's Origin of Symmetry--import only, and I'm not paying $26 bucks, especially $26 bucks where not all of it is going to the band).

Buying CDs is a symbolic act of support for the artist, but you know what? The record labels skim so much off of it that it's not really worth it. Skip buying the CD--go to their show (provided it's not a concert with tickets sold by Ticketmaster, but that's another issue entirely). Buy their t-shirt. There are plenty of acts I love that struggle to make ends meet and so yes, it is important to me to support them.

That's the problem I have with the music industry--prices are too high and not enough of what I pay goes to the person who created the music. And as someone with an iPod, you bet your bottom I'm gonna keep downloading as long as I have a high-speed internet connection.

Lebell · 05-03-2005, 09:04 AM

It seems to me that this is the heart of the article:

"It is now a federal crime to use a video camera to record films in cinemas, punishable by up to three years in prison for the first offence. It is 10 years for sharing a movie or a song prior to its commercial release."

No, I don't have a problem with this.

Carno · 05-03-2005, 09:34 AM

Yeah, I don't really have a problem with it either. Bootleg movies suck. I always wait until I can download a high quality version

AngelicVampire · 05-03-2005, 09:55 AM

Lebell, perhaps what they need to do is reduce the waiting time again? Provide descent digital copies at the same time as the cinema release then higher quality DVD versions soon afterwards (basically get people to buy it twice).

The only reason I watch rips is because they are digital (on comp) and they are often of movies I only want to see once... at one point Windows forced me to rip DVDs so that I could watch them, DRM really screwed my comp over with SP2. However if I could get reasonable legal downloads I would (note: I only have rips of movies I own on my hard disk, the ones I rented and had to rip were deleted on return as I don't believe its right to steal stuff).

snowy · 05-03-2005, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

It seems to me that this is the heart of the article:

"It is now a federal crime to use a video camera to record films in cinemas, punishable by up to three years in prison for the first offence. It is 10 years for sharing a movie or a song prior to its commercial release."

No, I don't have a problem with this.

What about the cost to our prison system for housing non-violent criminals? Do you have a problem with that? The taxpayers are the ones who are going to end up paying even more so big business can keep on making big bucks. The movie industry is not going to pay to keep violators of the law fed, housed and clothed.

We're still getting the shaft when it comes down to it, by paying too much at the theater and then paying taxes to keep some guy in federal prison who did nothing to warrant such a harsh punishment.

jorgelito · 05-03-2005, 11:38 AM

I'm not so sure the punishment fits the crime. I agree downloading is wrong but I think they are going overboard and are oberzealous. Especially when coporate criminals get away with stealing billions.

If I get three years for "stealing" on song worth $.99, why does the Enron guy or whatever who stole billions, get away with probation or whatever small "punishment"?

Glory's Sun · 05-03-2005, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

I'm not so sure the punishment fits the crime. I agree downloading is wrong but I think they are going overboard and are oberzealous. Especially when coporate criminals get away with stealing billions.

If I get three years for "stealing" on song worth $.99, why does the Enron guy or whatever who stole billions, get away with probation or whatever small "punishment"?

I'm pretty sure that if you were caught downloading, there would be some sort of settlement or plea offered first. Also, I don't think they are going after the person with 1 song. They are going after the people who distribute thousands primarily.

Cuatela · 05-03-2005, 11:54 AM

I tend to agree with the Unix motto (at least I think it was them) of "Free information". Any and all forms of information should be freely accessible except where it could harm an individual (whether it be the recipient, creator, or some other person directly related to the information). I don't think actors and musicians should be paid millions for a single work, which would in turn lower costs for production. Obviously companies need to sell their work, which is fine for people who are willing to do it, but there should be an alternative.

whocarz · 05-03-2005, 11:42 PM

Oh wonderful. Let's make more reasons to have government ninjas raid your house. Now you gotta worry about being woken up at 2 in the morning by a flashbang and a bunch of guys with subguns screaming at you because you have an illegal copy of "Son of the Mask" (why did you download THAT movie anyway?) on your hard drive.

d*d · 05-04-2005, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor226

I tend to agree with the Unix motto (at least I think it was them) of "Free information". Any and all forms of information should be freely accessible except where it could harm an individual (whether it be the recipient, creator, or some other person directly related to the information).

Whoah there, what about intellectual property rights, If I create any number of works that can be digitised and therefore become information (which covers a lot of ground) I want to know there are precidents in place to stop schmucks nicking the information and using it for their own gain.

05-03-2005, 04:51 AM	#2 (permalink)
superiorrain Psycho Location: London	I'm currently doing my dissertation on this very topic. Of course downloads have affected the industry but it was in many ways the industries fault. Spent years pissing about trying to stop it all, no innovation game from them what so ever. Then when they do offer legal downloads, it comes at a price, which in my opinion is still way to high. That and 'new music' being produced is becoming less and less, along with radio stations becoming even more restrictive on what they play. It seems to me that a combination of these things has hurt the industry more than downloading has. I think that the music industry has to follow the model of one other business. The only other billion dollar business around, that consumers pay way over the odds for, when they could get it for free, is the bottled water industry. Package it up right, put the service behind it and give the wookie what he wants at a reasonable price. If they achieve this then maybe more of us will turn to their legal, highly highly highly profitable download services. __________________ "The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible." - Arthur C. Clarke

05-03-2005, 08:33 AM	#7 (permalink)
JamesB Insane Location: Ottawa	Wow - this is the DMCA on steroids. It is amazing the fear mongering - and the law-makers who use it. __________________ -- apt-get install spare_time --

05-03-2005, 08:36 AM	#8 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	Except now apparently it is. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

05-03-2005, 08:45 AM	#9 (permalink)
snowy Kick Ass Kunoichi Location: Oregon	I usually use downloading music to preview things I think I might like--if I do really like them, I go and buy them. I only burn copies of CDs I wouldn't buy (ie Justin Timberlake--he's got enough money, thank you) or CDs I can't get ahold of (Muse's Origin of Symmetry--import only, and I'm not paying $26 bucks, especially $26 bucks where not all of it is going to the band). Buying CDs is a symbolic act of support for the artist, but you know what? The record labels skim so much off of it that it's not really worth it. Skip buying the CD--go to their show (provided it's not a concert with tickets sold by Ticketmaster, but that's another issue entirely). Buy their t-shirt. There are plenty of acts I love that struggle to make ends meet and so yes, it is important to me to support them. That's the problem I have with the music industry--prices are too high and not enough of what I pay goes to the person who created the music. And as someone with an iPod, you bet your bottom I'm gonna keep downloading as long as I have a high-speed internet connection. __________________ If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

05-03-2005, 09:04 AM	#10 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	It seems to me that this is the heart of the article: "It is now a federal crime to use a video camera to record films in cinemas, punishable by up to three years in prison for the first offence. It is 10 years for sharing a movie or a song prior to its commercial release." No, I don't have a problem with this. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-03-2005, 05:10 AM	#3 (permalink)
flamingdog Still fighting it.	When companies like EMI are dropping nearly £30million to lame ducks like Mariah Carey to make her go away, with only one (flopped) album of her original £70million contract fulfilled, I have very little sympathy for the record industry. Fuck you, EMI.

05-03-2005, 05:21 AM	#4 (permalink)
Carno Junkie	Does anyone else have a feeling that the music industry is eventually going to go down in flames?

05-03-2005, 05:41 AM	#6 (permalink)
Glory's Sun Registered User	There's no way the penalites should be that high. I understand the RIAA and MPA's frustration but at the same time they have to realize that they fucked it up. If they were to offer items at a cheaper rate and actually put some good shit on the market this whole thing would never have grown to the proportions that it did. Downloading = Terrorism--- I call bullshit

05-03-2005, 09:34 AM	#11 (permalink)
Carno Junkie	Yeah, I don't really have a problem with it either. Bootleg movies suck. I always wait until I can download a high quality version

05-03-2005, 09:55 AM	#12 (permalink)
AngelicVampire Insane	Lebell, perhaps what they need to do is reduce the waiting time again? Provide descent digital copies at the same time as the cinema release then higher quality DVD versions soon afterwards (basically get people to buy it twice). The only reason I watch rips is because they are digital (on comp) and they are often of movies I only want to see once... at one point Windows forced me to rip DVDs so that I could watch them, DRM really screwed my comp over with SP2. However if I could get reasonable legal downloads I would (note: I only have rips of movies I own on my hard disk, the ones I rented and had to rip were deleted on return as I don't believe its right to steal stuff).

05-03-2005, 11:38 AM	#14 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	I'm not so sure the punishment fits the crime. I agree downloading is wrong but I think they are going overboard and are oberzealous. Especially when coporate criminals get away with stealing billions. If I get three years for "stealing" on song worth $.99, why does the Enron guy or whatever who stole billions, get away with probation or whatever small "punishment"?

05-03-2005, 11:54 AM	#16 (permalink)
Cuatela Insane Location: NC, USA	I tend to agree with the Unix motto (at least I think it was them) of "Free information". Any and all forms of information should be freely accessible except where it could harm an individual (whether it be the recipient, creator, or some other person directly related to the information). I don't think actors and musicians should be paid millions for a single work, which would in turn lower costs for production. Obviously companies need to sell their work, which is fine for people who are willing to do it, but there should be an alternative. __________________ Any sarcasm was intentional.

05-03-2005, 11:42 PM	#17 (permalink)
whocarz Jarhead Location: Colorado	Oh wonderful. Let's make more reasons to have government ninjas raid your house. Now you gotta worry about being woken up at 2 in the morning by a flashbang and a bunch of guys with subguns screaming at you because you have an illegal copy of "Son of the Mask" (why did you download THAT movie anyway?) on your hard drive. __________________ If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly