Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown

Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown

www.dailytech.com

It also implements an interesting provision called "imminent infringement", which allows the government to charge people who they think might be about to infringe with a civil offense (for example if you searched "torrent daft punk"). This is among the first official "thought crime" provisions to be proposed by the U.S. government. The bill also makes it a criminal offense to bypass DRM.

(visit the link for the full news article)

So basically I can be charged before I commit a crime? That is just stupid! How would they even use this? Would they spy on us until we search something and then we would get arrested? It's like saying "You look like you're about to steal that" and you get charged with a crime you didn't even commit... Ugh.

www.dailytech.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

For the time being I cannot even begin to see how they could enforce a measure like this. They'd have to hire tens of thousands of people just to serve the warrants. And then the overburdoned courts and the jails that are way over capacity???

Yup, It's a stupid idea, I don't even see why they are trying to enforce it.

I just found this news from today,It fits well with your thread. Maybe it's a counter attack ...youtube-global.blogspot.com...

Welcome to Minority Report style government folks.

Interestingly, the statements seem to fly in the face of a recent Government Accountability Office study released to U.S. Congress earlier this year, which concluded that there is virtually no evidence for the claimed million dollar losses by the entertainment industry. That study suggested that piracy could even benefit the economy.

The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing apparently. This is ridiculous and should be avoided at all costs.

~Keeper

I am very anti-piracy but that does sound like very bogus to me and will never hold up in court. I'm aware because of past topics here that the majority of ATS users have no problem with pirating music and videos and that was something that really turned me off to this site. I almost didn't come back because of it. While I don't agree with this crackdown (if it is accurately being portrayed) piracy is theft and there's no getting around that.

Theft should be prosecuted. Go ahead and flame me. I know what it feels like and how much it hurts a recording artist.

Originally posted by ChrisCrikey
I am very anti-piracy but that does sound like very bogus to me and will never hold up in court. I'm aware because of past topics here that the majority of ATS users have no problem with pirating music and videos and that was something that really turned me off to this site. I almost didn't come back because of it. While I don't agree with this crackdown (if it is accurately being portrayed) piracy is theft and there's no getting around that.

Theft should be prosecuted. Go ahead and flame me. I know what it feels like and how much it hurts a recording artist.

It actually doesn't, as my post reflects..

Government study on top of that.

It's the difference between an artist getting 4 million or getting 3.99 Million.

Artists don't make the bulk of their money on the sale of records anymore, it comes from endorsements for products, interviews, merchandise, ticket sales for concerts etc..

~Keeper

It doesn't matter wither you support piracy or not, what matters is this new law is way too overboard. Piracy cannot be stopped this way, it would just be innocent people being put in jail.

reply to post by ChrisCrikey


Piracy is theft. 100% agree with you there. However, look at the war against drugs and prohibition. Any time you try and restrict something through heavy handed tactics like this, it blows up in your face. This will blow up in their faces even more so than it already has. Honestly, they deserve it too.

Theres another link in the article that shows how truly ludicrous it is.

One Nation Under Infringement

What does your picture hanging in your living room, singing a Beatles song to your friend, or showing off pictures from your latest museum trip have in common? They are all copyright infringements, according the 1976 Copyright Act.

If you post a picture of a concert are you infringing? If you let your friend listen to your phone to hear part of a song at a concert are you infringing?

The answer to both questions according to the 1976 Copyright Act is yes; you are obviously infringing, as you paid no royalties to the creator of the creative work (the musician).

I am apparently violating the law by not paying this website for using their article here.

My bad.

reply to post by ThaLoccster


Nah, it would be under fair usage.

This is a clear case of they have technology that they are with holding that will allow them to monitor thoughts or memories. as it is the law is not really threatening as they can do nothing with it, so it will get passed. In five years though when they turn round and say thoughts can be watched on a remote monitor via a chip which everyone who wishes to eat and work will have to have, then BINGO the technology catches up to the law.

To predict the future just watch Hollywood, especially B rate movies which seem to be used by TPTB to float the ideas they have to the public 30 years in advance.

I say take down all the governments so we can start again! Freedom of speech, in 6 months you won't even have freedom of thought!

May peace be with you, as God has F*cked off to another planet where the people are sane, compassionate and deserving of his love.

reply to post by Hefficide

Very true but it's going to suck for the ones they get to. Like it's sucked for the people they've made examples of.

I ready a really great article on this a few weeks ago that covered all the angles and arguments, and basically came to a similar conclusion to yours.

They explained (and I only sort of got the geekese) how they would attempt to identify the pirated files. And their current thinking is that the tools to be on the lookout for if you should have pirated stuff around are those that strip the super-secret codes off the files and recompress them so some signatures can't be traced. This is going to be a logistical nightmare to enforce. I can't see them relying solely on ISP records, particularly in areas where multiple computers are in use and particularly in a time when people grab wireless signals all the time.

I think what's also going to be a logistical nightmare for them is proving that your music didn't originate from you or where it even came from. I have hundreds of vinyl albums and a couple of thousand CDs, most of which I've recorded and ripped, and many of which I've given away since. How on earth could I ever prove I even bought them? But I did and I own the right to listen to them.

I'm thinking the defense lawyers are going to have a field day with this one, but boy they better be sharp.

Oops...to the root of the story...the thought thing? No way in hell. So anyone who searches murder is a killer? Anyone searching for lyrics is a thief? It boggles my mind to think how they will ever accomplish this.


[edit on 23-6-2010 by ~Lucidity]

reply to post by tothetenthpower

Think what you will but as a former semi-pro musician I'm telling you it hurts...at least it hurt me and other bands I've known. Smaller acts really do count on the sale of CDs.

It's a slippery slope to shade your morals according to how much money you think the artists and the industry should be making. It's okay to steal from the rich, is that what you think?

Hello,

I think even if it is implemented, it is just an avenue of generating more revenue to fund projects better left on the drawing-board. Like this one perhaps.

What I meant was; it costs to jail people, people will just get fined exuberant amounts of money to try and quell the act of piracy.

[edit on (6/23/1010 by loveguy]

reply to post by ~Lucidity


I agree, there's no ammount of current technology, or man power for that matter to allow for this sort of legislation to be enforced.

Every case will end up in a mistrial because the defense won 't really have a hard time proving reasonable doubt.

~Keeper

reply to post by ChrisCrikey


1.2 million people downloaded the album the rest of the figure of who actually paid are a little fragmented but averaged $6. who am i talking about RADIOHEAD SEE STORY

Sounds pretty good to me, as the band got the money direct!

I wonder what the founding fathers would have thought about illegal downloading? and a new law that attempts to charge a citizen before a crime is committed? its interesting to ponder.

Originally posted by ChrisCrikey
I am very anti-piracy but that does sound like very bogus to me and will never hold up in court. I'm aware because of past topics here that the majority of ATS users have no problem with pirating music and videos

Speak for your self.
Neither have I done such a thing.
However you paint the majority of ATS users with a
tainted very broad brush.
I personally find your libelous comments offensive.