For the last few years, a coalition of technology companies, academics and computer programmers has been trying to persuade Congress to scale back the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Now US Congress is preparing to do precisely the opposite. A proposed copyright law seen by CNET News.com would expand the DMCA's restrictions on software that can bypass copy protections and grant federal police more wiretapping and enforcement powers.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-06
Because the punishment (10 years in prison) is grossly out of proportion to the crime (copyright infringement). In free societies, the punishment is supposed to fit the crime. If I walk into wal-mart and steal a DVD and get caught, I'm not going to prison, I'm going to pay a fine.
The feds and most states permit you to make a single personal archival backup of digital products, as a hedge against data loss, destruction of media, etc. As such, neither the FBI nor any state has prosecuted an individual for making a personal archival backup, to my knowledge. Are you aware of any prosecutions -- or are you simply confused about your rights?
Member since:2005-11-10
The feds and most states permit you to make a single personal archival backup of digital products, as a hedge against data loss, destruction of media, etc. As such, neither the FBI nor any state has prosecuted an individual for making a personal archival backup, to my knowledge. Are you aware of any prosecutions -- or are you simply confused about your rights?
I don't think you understood my post at all. I never mentioned making an archival backup. All I'm talking about is how 10 years in prison for copyright infringement is a ridiculously excessive punishment for such a minor "crime". I was drawing an analogy to shoplifting. You don't get 10 years in prison for stealing a movie off the shelf. You shouldn't get 10 years in prison for "stealing" a movie off the internet.
Member since:2006-01-06
Because the punishment (10 years in prison) is grossly out of proportion to the crime (copyright infringement). In free societies, the punishment is supposed to fit the crime. If I walk into wal-mart and steal a DVD and get caught, I'm not going to prison, I'm going to pay a fine.
The feds and most states permit you to make a single personal archival backup of digital products, as a hedge against data loss, destruction of media, etc. As such, neither the FBI nor any state has prosecuted an individual for making a personal archival backup, to my knowledge. Are you aware of any prosecutions -- or are you simply confused about your rights?
Member since:2006-01-02
I shall cut down the tallest tree in the forrest with...a herring. A red herring.
"Stealing a DVD legally gets me a fine.
Making a copy of the DVD legally gets me a long prison sentence.
That the one which si not theft carries a vastly higher punishment is wrong."
"You are allowed one backup. No one has been prosecuted for making backups."
Yeah, that so logically follows. OK, it might also be a non-sequitur--I think the herring fits better.
Member since:
2005-11-10
How are you being "oppressed", exactly? By having to pay for a DVD or song? Oh, the horrrrrrrrrrorrrrrr....
Because the punishment (10 years in prison) is grossly out of proportion to the crime (copyright infringement). In free societies, the punishment is supposed to fit the crime. If I walk into wal-mart and steal a DVD and get caught, I'm not going to prison, I'm going to pay a fine.
Up until 2003, copyright infringement was a civil crime, that was punishable only by a fine. In 2003 congress made it a federal offense that carries 5 years in prison! We all thought that was insane then, now this goes even further.
And, for the record, I don't believe it's possible to "listen to a song illegally" or "watch a movie illegally", no matter what congress or the "content providers" say. What, I illegally copied it into my brain?