1/4 million dollar fine for bootlegging d+d books?

[Umbran]

*There's no way this could effectively be enforced, because America's legal system would be gridlocked for ages.

They don't have to enforce against every single case, you know. They can choose to enforce just enough to put fear into the hearts of many.

[edit: in addition, 8200 years of court time is bad, but not quite as bad as one might think, as they are spread over how many courts, nationwide?]

 

[Zappo]

If I've read the article correctly, currently you can make a file available and you are committing a crime only if someone downloads it. While the proposed law would make a crime of just making the file available. Conceptually, it sounds reasonable. There are other copyright laws and proposed laws in the USA and elsewhere that are way more dangerous to fair use.

However, the current penalties for copyright infringement are way out of proportion IMO and this law isn't doing any better.

What can I say - I don't live in the USA, but I'm still worried, because I can see that lawmakers' consensus is drifting towards an idea of fair use as something that can be sacrificed if need be. I feel that big copyright holders are failing to grasp the opportunities of the informatic revolution, and are fighting against it instead. The new technological age calls for a radical change in the way copyrights work, and opens up new avenues of distribution, but neither of these calls are being answered adequately IMO.

I think that there is a niche, which cannot stay empty for long. It can be filled illegally, or it can be a business opportunity. Repression will only slow down the process. Already, file sharing programs which hide the user are being researched. We'll see how it goes.

 

[Mark]

*opens up kazaa* Lets see, 3774004 users currently online, and assuming that most of them are in America, and that most have at least 1 copyrighted file... that's 3 million lawsuits, and up to 750000000000$ in punishments. Is the prison system, or our judicial system big enough for that? Consider each case would take perhaps 1 day (as it's a felony, deserving a trial), that's around 8200 years of court time. There's no way this could effectively be enforced, because America's legal system would be gridlocked for ages.

Not that I care one way or the other but...

Would it require a "lawsuit"? I believe that it would be a criminal, not a civil, matter. It would require an arrest and possibly a trial, but I'd imagine most people caught red-handed illegally distributing copywritten materials would want to keep the felony conviction off of their record (not to mention the large fine) by avoiding a trial and plea bargaining down to a misdemeanor with a smaller fine. People with families and jobs where having a felony record is frowned upon would probably be advised to not share files if this passes into law. Anyone hoping to get into a decent college or avoid having to explain an arrest record to a prospective employer might want to quit sharing files if they do so and this law comes into being. Seriously, if someone is only picking up a little music online and doesn't get why it is a big deal, they'd likely be better off staying on the safe side of this if it goes through.

 

[orbitalfreak]

1/4 million dollar fine for bootlegging d+d books?

WooHoo!
Now, all we need is for this to pass and then be enforced against a few people in high-profile cases. Piracy could take a big hit, and people might stop stealing as much stuff.
::is really happy::

 

[trancejeremy]

1/4 million dollar fine for bootlegging d+d books?

WooHoo!
Now, all we need is for this to pass and then be enforced against a few people in high-profile cases. Piracy could take a big hit, and people might stop stealing as much stuff.
::is really happy::

Ah yes, because piracy of D&D books is a much bigger problem than things like rape, murder, drunk driving, assault, etc...

(Though likely it would never be enforced against RPG pirates, since it's not the RPG companies with the big pockets that are pressuring politicians, but the music & movie companies...)

 

[Planesdragon]

*opens up kazaa* Lets see, 3774004 users currently online, and assuming that most of them are in America, and that most have at least 1 copyrighted file... that's 3 million lawsuits, and up to 750000000000$ in punishments. Is the prison system, or our judicial system big enough for that? Consider each case would take perhaps 1 day (as it's a felony, deserving a trial), that's around 8200 years of court time. There's no way this could effectively be enforced, because America's legal system would be gridlocked for ages.

It doesn't need to be enforced that harshly.

If this law were passed as-drafted (and I can guarantee that it won't be--this is a clear case of "asking for more than you expect to get"), those charged would primarily just plea bargain their way out of the trial. They wouldn't go after very many folks--just the loudest and the worst offenders. Most file-sharers would stop what they're doing, and take at least some effort to be "totally legit."

People alter their behavior for the chance of wining a few million dollars--people will alter their behavior to avoid the chance of losing everything. Especially given that the odds only get better, not worse, with time.

 

[Anubis the Doomseer]

The international application of the law is suspect. Take, for instance, Canada - in Canada all recordable media currently has an additional tax placed upon it. There is a proposal to extend this tax to the sale of things like printers, toner, hard drives, mp3 players etc (the tax itself is about $1.00 per disk, or the proposed $10.00 for hardware). The revenue from these taxes are collected in a special fund to defray the loss incurred by the various media conglomerates. The amount was mutually agreed up on by all parties, meaning the RIAA and such agreed to these numbers.

Technically this means that no one in Canada can be charged with illegal file sharing, because technically we have already "paid" for the product, and paid an amount agreed to by the large production/distribution companies, who did so with an understanding that the media may be used for the storage or use of files shared in a peer-to-peer network. There is, therefore, no crime committed. Technically you could get those people for actually sharing the files, and you can get them for making a profit from the sale of pirated material (because they have not purchased resale rights to the product).

Our government (federal) is also not in a mood to make too many changes to the law, nor is it a huge priority for our law enforcement branches (cyberterrorism, kiddie porn, hate speech, identity theft and fraud are more pressing concerns). Does this mean a file swapper in Canada is untouchable, no. But the American court would have to make a hell of a case (or pay a judge enough) to overlook the measures taken by our national government.

 

[d20Dwarf]

I think this type of legislation is just a knee-jerk reaction by bought politicians (say hi John Conyers) with no clue about technology.

If bills like this actually pass we might as well stifle all technological innovation so that entrenched industries need not fear competition and change.

 

[The Sigil]

1/4 million dollar fine for bootlegging d+d books?

WooHoo!
Now, all we need is for this to pass and then be enforced against a few people in high-profile cases. Piracy could take a big hit, and people might stop stealing as much stuff.
::is really happy::

Nobody is stealing stuff right now.

A great number of people are committing copyright infringement but they are not stealing.

The difference is that if somebody grabs an copy of one of my PDFs off of Kazaa, I'm not "out" a book. I don't have a pile of 999 books to sell, and because this clod took one of them, I now have only 998 and therefore I have directly lost a sale (because I no longer have a book to offer).

Maybe they would have paid for it, maybe they lack the inclination/money to do so... but I can't say that if 10,000 people download a copy of my book off of Kazaa, that's 10,000 "lost sales" - the actual number is much smaller, because the only true "lost sales" I have are to those who would have paid for the PDF at RPGNow had they not been able to download it on Kazaa. This is copyright infringement, but it's not QUITE the same as stealing.

Another way of looking at it:

"Stealing" means I see your car in your driveway and I take your car. In this case, in order for me to have a car, you must "not have" the car.

"Copyright infringement" means I see your car in your driveway, study it carefully, then use my "miracle nanobots" to create an exact replica of said car by re-arranging dirt molecules. In this case, I can have a car, and you can have a car too.

That is the fundamental difference between "Intellectual Property" and "Tangible Property" - the principle of exclusivity/impoverishment. With Tangible Property, my having A precludes you having A at the same time. With Intellectual Property, you having B in no way diminishes my ability to have and use B.

THAT, BTW is why "copyright infringement" is a different animal than "stealing" - because if you steal something, I no longer have the ablity to offer that particular item for sale - you have literally cost me a sale because if you steal a book off a shelf, the bookstore cannot sell that book (because it is no longer theirs). If you grab a copy of one of my PDFs, I can still sell as many PDFs as I like... you have not "taken away" my ability to sell that copy of a PDF.

That's why I'm not nearly as bent out of shape about somebody "getting my PDFs off Kazaa" as I would be about someone shoplifting physical books. If you take 100 copies off Kazaa, I can still sell 100 copies elsewhere. If you take 100 copies off the shelf, I can't still sell 100 copies elsewhere.

As for piracy, well... just remember that pirates usually had a charter granted by a friendly government protecting their actions as they "appropriated" stuff that belonged to others and in return sent a "cut" back to the friendly government... much like the plundering and pirating and looting of the public domain that is going on today *cough*Disney*cough* complete with kickbacks to the sponsoring government *cough*campaign contributions*cough* - but that would take us too far into Politics.

Truth be told, if the OGL didn't effectively prevent me from doing so, I'd probably have slipped a "it is the express intent of the author to release this work into the public domain on Jan 1, 2010" or similar into my works.

I do know for darn sure I have a clause in my will assigning all copyrighted works I create outside the OGL (because those works are derivatives of copyrighted works and the OGL does not grant me authority to place the derivatives into the public domain) in my lifetime to the public domain unless specifically otherwise stated in the work itself (so far, I have a total of 0 exceptions).

Truth be told, I think copyright is an outdated concept - in the information age, I would suggest that at least 95% of all your sales of something will be made before your competitors can even turn around, copy it, and sell their own copies... so why are we so doggone intent on putting a moratorium of material flowing into the public domain over that last 5%? (Heck, it is estimated that perpetual copyright in effect only gives only .03% of potential revenue of copyrighted material to the owners that they didn't have prior to the 20-year extension mandated by the Sonny Bono act - they already had 99.97% of potential revenue before that act - that they're now quibbling over .03% seems lame).

I'm veering into the political, so I'll stop now.

--The Sigil

 

[Eldragon]

<Sarcasm>
This is going to be great! Once music piracy via the internet is dead, I can go back to letting MTV and Clearchannel decide what I like to listen to for me.
</Sarcasm>