Pirating to become a felony.

[WizardOfAtlantis]

They would have to fundamentally change the way the internet works, and how people access the internet to enforce piracy laws on any grand scale, and the critics of such a draconian big brother intervention would be very vocal. I don't think either political party in America would support such a control over the internet, it would be too unpopular and risky for either of them to tread those waters.

They (in the US) tried to pass a law just this last fall for this. I can't remember what it was called, renamed something like the Internet Blacklist Bill, that would have allowed them the ability to shut down any site they deemed inappropriate, from torrent site to whatever site they might have deemed to be of "terrorist" nature. Thankfully, the bill wasn't passed, but someone will bring it up again.

 

 

[Keanumoreira]

I'm not fully on top of the details, but America is apparently considering to make the repercussions for pirating into a national crime, as well as other countries who are thinking of applying this same act to their highest crime punishments. Seems to me that the age of pirates just got a little more difficult...

 

Keanu

I have been back tracking the legal threads and it seems that it is only California that is considering the legislation.

 

That's not what I was informed of. I was told Congress was overlooking the papers...

[hightest]

in Canada the laws haven't been changed since 1978 when VHS started to get the fill industry worried. so the way it is now if you payed for it you can copy it and let your family and friends use those copies. The current government has tried three times to introduce new legislation that would make it illegal to transfer data from one device to another. For example if you downloaded a song to your personal pc and then transferred that song to your mp3 player or even a flash drive you would be breaking the law. The purpose of the law is to make you pay for every download, even if it is the same download but on different devices. It seems there can be no middle ground which is kind of ironic since this is Canada.

[DarkeWolf]

Sounds like another "feel good" law to me.

Because yeah... there's just no way to enforce something like this, without a serious invasion of privacy, and it still can't be proven who was doing the downloading. As mentioned before, An IP address is inconclusive.

 

The only thing that they'd be able to do is come in, arrest the person on suspicion, confiscate their rigs, and look thru the hard drives for evidence.

There is also SO MUCH ROOM for error in something like this. Ok, say that I pay a subscription to a site that allows me to download mp3's or mp4's to my computer, or Ipod, Iphone, or other wireless device. A site that is Authorized to distribute that material. That's legal.

Say that I download one of those songs to my Ipod, then upload it to my computer. I upload it to my second computer, then upload it onto my phone.

 

Lets also take a look at some of these wireless devices. For instance, the MS Zune. You can share files directly with another Zune player with OTA transfers.

 

I don't condemn lawmakers for wanting to step up with law enforcement. I just think that our particular lawmakers are a bunch of uninformed axe swipes who have no idea of the repercussions or implementation of what it is they are doing.

[Lisnpuppy]

For whatever reason they are considering it... I consider it a possible "back door" way to access individuals internet history. As we are aware internet and computer privacy laws are vague and this law (if it were passed as a Federal law) would allow law enforcement greater access to individuals internet actions, site visitation history and downloads.

 

Think about that one for a while, eh?

[DarkeWolf]

If they suspect you of terrorism the FBI can already to this as part of the National Security Act after 911. I guess that maybe they want to broaden their horizons there :verymad:

[Fatalmasterpiece]

Just like Marijuana, you are going to see more people in prisons for crimes that hurt no one in the first place, right next to the guy who robbed a liqueur store and the one who beat his wife and children. Meanwhile, taxpayers, ei those of us who aren't rich enough to cash in on Bush era tax breaks, foot the bill and major corporations are made happier because no one is stealing their "potential income". :down:

[ginnyfizz]

For whatever reason they are considering it... I consider it a possible "back door" way to access individuals internet history. As we are aware internet and computer privacy laws are vague and this law (if it were passed as a Federal law) would allow law enforcement greater access to individuals internet actions, site visitation history and downloads.

 

Think about that one for a while, eh?

 

Amen to that my friend, I could not put it better. They tried to get ISP's to police something similar over here. It was, you could say, an epic fail.

[crimsonedge11]

They would have to fundamentally change the way the internet works, and how people access the internet to enforce piracy laws on any grand scale, and the critics of such a draconian big brother intervention would be very vocal. I don't think either political party in America would support such a control over the internet, it would be too unpopular and risky for either of them to tread those waters.

They (in the US) tried to pass a law just this last fall for this. I can't remember what it was called, renamed something like the Internet Blacklist Bill, that would have allowed them the ability to shut down any site they deemed inappropriate, from torrent site to whatever site they might have deemed to be of "terrorist" nature. Thankfully, the bill wasn't passed, but someone will bring it up again.

 

I don't trust the government with that kind of authority to shut down sites they deem inappropriate. The internet is the last refuge of genuine freedom we actually have. Suppose they started shutting down internet sites because they were too critical of the government or the president? And then just turned around and labeled them "terrorists" to justify it. And then nobody would give it a second thought, because everyone is against terrorism right?

[WrathOfDeadguy]

There are felony levels of theft, and there are misdemeanor levels of theft- often determined by the value of property stolen and whether or not the thief put anybody in harm's way while stealing it.

 

Piracy of the online variety does not create a dangerous situation where people could be injured or killed. Yes, there should be a felony level of theft here- but it should not ever be applied for swiping a few songs or movies or games. That's right around the level of shoplifting, and shoplifters generally aren't even charged when they're caught. Most major retailers build allowances for shoplifting into their annual budgets- they call it "shrinkage." Felony charges for piracy in that context are completely absurd; it may be wrong but it just doesn't even begin to come close to being anywhere near touching a level of crime deserving hard prison time.

 

Now, if there's a bust involving some mass amount of data and/or a distribution network, then yes there should be charges. Like it or not, all data is not and cannot be free- there are people whose jobs revolve around the creation and distribution of that data, and they deserve compensation from everyone who uses it. The folks who distribute stolen data en masse are the root of the problem- go after them. They fall under the category of white collar crime, and they do deserve prison time the same way someone would if they skimmed thousands or millions out of a company account.

 

However...

 

I believe strongly in Fair Use doctrine, and even more strongly in an individual's right to privacy. The Internet is not the domain of any government or corporation, and just because my computer is connected to the internet it does not become public. What I do on my computer is private unless I post it on a public-access site. If I visit a page that requires a username and password for access, then I believe that I should have an expectation of privacy the same way I would if I joined a private club out in the world.

 

Any law enforcement agency should need a warrant, served to me personally,or to the owner of the site in question personally, before they should be allowed to search my computer or my privileged-access online activities. These searches should not be doable remotely, ever. They should not be doable through a simple demand to an ISP, ever. The key to maintaining governmental responsibility is maintaining transparency, and that requires face-to-face accountability. It is entirely too easy to eavesdrop on electronic communications of any type; the law has never kept pace with technology and it is well past time we rectified that situation.

 

The burden of proof on the law is way too light. We are coming dangerously close to a state of affairs where a government can, with enough digging, find some crime for anyone to be guilty of regardless of whether or not there was reason for suspicion in the first place. Surveillance is something that should be used to build an existing case- it should not ever, under any circumstance whatsoever be used as a tool to create a case. If surveillance of any kind may be used as the foundation of a case, then surveillance will eventually become ubiquitous. Nothing we do or say online or over the phone will ever be private again and there will be no limits on who the law may watch or why.