http://www.fbi.gov/cyberinvest/cyberedletter.htm
Their letter says this :
"Cyber Investigations

Cyber Education Letter

To Users of Peer-to-Peer Systems:

The FBI has undertaken a new initiative to educate and warn citizens about certain risks and dangers associated with the use of Peer-to-Peer systems on the Internet. While the FBI supports and encourages the development of new technologies, we also recognize that technology can be misused for illicit and, in some cases, criminal purposes. In an effort to help citizens learn how to protect themselves, this letter is being distributed and is posted on the FBI's web site at www.fbi.gov/cyberinvest/cyberedletter.htm.

Peer-to-Peer networks allow users connected to the Internet to link their computers with other computers around the world. These networks are established for the purpose of sharing files. Typically, users of Peer-to-Peer networks install free software on their computers which allows them (1) to find and download files located on another Peer-to-Peer user's hard drive, and (2) to share with those other users files located on their own computer. Unfortunately sometimes these information-sharing systems have been used to engage in illegal activity. Some of the most common crimes associated with Peer-to-Peer networks are the following:

Copyright Infringement: It is a violation of Federal law to distribute copyrighted music, movies, software, games, and other works without authorization. There are important national economic consequences associated with such theft. The FBI has asked industry associations and companies that are particularly concerned with intellectual property theft to report to the FBI -- for possible criminal investigation and prosecution -- anyone that they have reason to believe is violating Federal copyright law.

Child Exploitation and Obscenity: The receipt or distribution of child pornography and unlawful obscenity over the Internet also is a serious Federal crime. The FBI cautions parents and guardians that, because there is no age restriction for the use of Peer-to-Peer services, pornography of all types is easily accessible by the many young children whose parents mistakenly believe they are only accessing music or movies. In fact, children may be exposed to pornography -- and subsequently lured by sexual predators -- even though they were not searching for pornography, as some network users deliberately mislabel the names of files for this purpose.

Computer Hacking: Peer-to-Peer networks also have been abused by hackers. Because these systems potentially expose your computer and files to millions of other users on the network, they also expose your computer to worms and viruses. In fact, some worms have been specifically written to spread by popular Peer-to-Peer networks. Also, if Peer-to-Peer software is not properly configured, you may be unknowingly opening up the contents of your entire hard drive for others to see and download your private information.

The FBI urges you to learn about the risks and dangers of Peer-to-Peer networks, as well as the legal consequences of copyright infringement, illegal pornography, and computer hacking. For more information about the law, visit www.usdoj.gov/criminal. The FBI takes seriously its mission to enforce the laws against those who use the Internet to commit crime. To report cyber crime, please contact your local FBI Field Office, www.fbi.gov/contact/fo/fo.htm or file a complaint through the Internet Crime Complaint Center at www.IC3.gov "

Fuck these guys!

I believe a coalition of concerning citizens needs to petition Congress for a change of the laws then.

concerned citizens I meant.

This isn't about people using the internet to commit crimes, it's about people commiting crimes to prevent people from using the internet to begin with.

You can't even get an accurate representation of the law from the people supposedly (now) enforcing it.

Copyright infringement is not a criminal offense. It's a civil one and under the AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act), non-commercial copyright infringement is NOT actionable.

And the liast time I called the FBI about copyright issues, they hung up on me because they had "more important things to do."

Once again, what worries me more than the FBI? Almost everything.

"...educate and warn citizens about certain risks and dangers associated with the use of Peer-to-Peer systems..."

"risks" and "dangers"? Um, like what?

Q: What do I do when I've wasted 5 seconds accidentily downloading a low bitrate version of a song on my T1?

A: Just download another version! Hey, it'll only take 5 seconds!

Other than that, I don't know of any "risks" or "dangers" on P2P.

Is the CIA going to help them? Hey, I heard there's weapons of mass destruction on p2p!

Is this a "crusade" against infringement?

Operation Protect the Public from Dangers on P2P?

This is very frightening. All of our elected officials and candidates for office should be made aware of this.

"You can't even get an accurate representation of the law from the people supposedly (now) enforcing it.

Copyright infringement is not a criminal offense. It's a civil one and under the AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act), non-commercial copyright infringement is NOT actionable."

Not true.

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ipmanual/03ipma.htm

mroop, you still haven't answered my two questions. You'll have to go back to the archives a few articles.

hey, you did. about time.

I think someone should inform them of the correct usage of the word 'piracy'.

I can't take anything seriously that uses the word "cyber".

I agree mastethom. Old farts can't keep up with anything. Except our baby boomer and hippie friends who have caught up and far surpassed us in their average amount of stupid per person. I love making cyberposts =)

I'm kinda new here but I've been watching this site for an extremely long time. ... I'll put my two cents from time to time.

"Child Exploitation and Obscenity: The receipt or distribution of child pornography and unlawful obscenity over the Internet also is a serious Federal crime. The FBI cautions parents and guardians that, because there is no age restriction for the use of Peer-to-Peer services, pornography of all types is easily accessible by the many young children whose parents mistakenly believe they are only accessing music or movies. In fact, children may be exposed to pornography -- and subsequently lured by sexual predators -- even though they were not searching for pornography, as some network users deliberately mislabel the names of files for this purpose."

Ahahahahahahahaha.... talking about trying to protect the children MY foot! They really should be worried on what RIAA members are really doing. Let's see what we have here. Many lyrics saying to kill everyone and ____ your ____'s. R-Kelly and HIS child porn problem. Michael Jackson and his problems. Rappers getting shot. Not to mention, the "wardrobe malfunction."

"Computer Hacking: Peer-to-Peer networks also have been abused by hackers. Because these systems potentially expose your computer and files to millions of other users on the network, they also expose your computer to worms and viruses. In fact, some worms have been specifically written to spread by popular Peer-to-Peer networks. Also, if Peer-to-Peer software is not properly configured, you may be unknowingly opening up the contents of your entire hard drive for others to see and download your private information."

They really should also keep an eye on the RIAA and whom they hire to "protect their copyrights." Some of these problems could possibly be coming from the group themselves. *grin*

Child pornography - that is the most horrendous crime that can ever be committed in today's society, and must be stopped at all costs.

Copyright infringement - FUCK THAT

Computer hacking - If you plan on fucking up the RIAA's computer network, FUCK THAT

It's called weapons of mass distraction.

"It's called weapons of mass distraction."

LOL .... too bad the american public is too affected by said weapon ~_~

They also had this..
"PIRATES IN CYBERSPACE
Not Exactly Fun and Games
02/19/04


Does the number TWENTY THREE BILLION DOLLARS get your attention?

That's how much money was lost last year as a result of criminals swiping copyright-protected digital copies of music, movies, software, and games... and distributing them through websites, chat rooms, mass email, FTP, and peer-to-peer networks."

-----------------------------------------
The bizarre thing is the look and feel of the FBI.gov site now....

I'd been there in the past, but hadn't been there in a while..the OLD FBI site was very serious, very heavy, very law enforcement like...

The new one...at first I thought it had been hacked and was a fake site....it's almost like someone hired a new webmaster and said...
"I want lots of pictures...bright colors, and fun...write it in a style appealing to the kids these days...

It's still a creepy website though...

The Exemption
To tackle the issue of copyright infringement by consumers and liability for contributory infringement by manufacturers, and to conclusively to resolve this debate, Congress fashioned a broad exemption as part of the AHRA:

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the non-commercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musial recordings.

Note that the language of the statute does not state that such actions are not infringements, as do the other exemptions of the Copyright Act, it simply says no action may be brought.

Neither the AHRA nor the Copyright Act of 1976
directly defines non-commercial. The Senate Report accompanying the AHRA suggests that the exemption is limited to private, non-commercial uses. By way of example, it notes that the exemption would apply to, the making of an audiogram by a consumer for use in his or her home, car, or portable tape player, or for a family member.

A straight reading of the statute, though, might suggest that a person could make a public non-commercial use, such as making a copy for a friend or friends (or even for all takers) as long as there was no commercial advantage. The Senate Report, but not the statute, attempts to further define non-commercial by stating that this means not for direct or indirect commercial advantage.

Thus, the exemption would not apply to a
person who makes multiple copies of a particular audiogram and sells those copies to others. To further complicate the issue, the Senate Report notes that these definitions only apply in the context of the AHRA exemption section. That
limitation was to keep the definition from affecting other infringement actions, classes of works, or principles of copyright law.

Whatever non-commercial means, the Senate
Report makes it clear that the exemption ceases to apply if the use becomes commercial and at that point that the normal copyright actions and defenses apply.

-- Geoffrey Hull

http://www.azoz.com/riaa/legal/hull.pdf

Meanwhile, mroop's link clearly states that one of the four tests for criminal copright infringement is:

4. The defendant infringed at least 10 copies of one or more copyrighted works with a total retail value of more than $2,500 within a 180-day period.

Once again, non-commercial use DOES NOT fall under this definition.

I hope they're going to crack down on Windows users then if they're worried about virus's so much.

I mean, copyright infringement is a problem on these networks for sure, but child pornography and hackers - aahahahaha! . It just shows they're clueless and desperate.

These statements have a 1950's close-minded feel to them that reminds me of black oppression in America in that time, and the attempt to stop artists like Elvis jirating his hips. Absolute joke.

The original link in the article no longer exists.

Oops. One of them does. The second one doesn't.

Im seriously considering calling them to complain about how offensive their site is.

Hey guys, here's an idea: reply to the e-mail.

encourage everybody to respond to the FBI Anti-Piracy group "cyberletter" telling them that these scare-tatics won't stop people from using P2P (legit, or non-legit usage), and that it is stupid that they would waste time parroting the RIAA, and enforcing the law against "pirates (and thet don't use that term right at all), instead of focusing more on terrorism/terrorists/national security.

*it ain't e-mail I realized, so ignore the "reply to the e-mail." part

hmm... well, this is dumb. I have an idea! let's have a war on P2P! It has bad stuff on it and that makes it bad! Wait! So does the internet! Wait! So does dumpy parts of town! Let's outlaw dumpy parts of town! #$%^#$% morons!

I bet they start that same "Deck of Cards" nonsense ...but this time..have different cards for different song sharing levels....
Ace of Hearts- IP address..xxx.xxx.xxx.xx
is sharing 1000 songs, including a Missy Elliot and a 50 cent...is believed to reside in New Jersey, and enjoys modern music.

Jack of Clubs -
Sharing 354 songs
including New Kids on the Block,
the Barney Song, and two Corey Aikens...
lives in Los Angeles, and is believed to be female. We believe she has a curfew.

Seven of Hearts- Sharing 600 songs
including Beatles "Hey Jude",
and "Mean Mr. Mustard", we believe he is a male, over 50, drives a SUV, and has high blood pressure. He is believed to be armed with a portable thumb drive and MP3 player. He is located in Chicago IL, and likes Philly Cheese Steaks and wears a size 9.5 shoe. Approach with caution, he is not a 12 year old girl.

King of Diamonds- Sharing 565664667 songs. Lives in San Francisco. Most of these songs are show tunes.
We believe this is a male in their mid 30s, and dresses conservatively.

There is over half a billion show tunes? That should be illegal right there.

Well now it seems like the 12 year old who is listening to her favorite Britney Spears song is number one on the list...

Lets see...

The 12 year old girl with the gag ball tied to her mouth and having permanent damage done to her genital area, thus ensuring her life to be destroyed, never having children of her own, and probably being in therapy for the rest of her life if she is lucky...Thats not as important as the 12 year old sharing a music file, lets file the music file sharer first.

And third on the list...

The over paid HACKER putting scripts on P2P networks that automaticly start to erase whats on your hard drive, even the "legal" files because the hacker can't pull his head out of his ass while breaking one law to enforce another.

Seems like the government has a list of what is most important, after all, the sexually abused girl with the gag ball wondering why that man is hurting her so bad doesn't have $2500 to pay off some Nazi organazation, whats happening to HER is not as important as the one with the MONEY.

America the Beautiful.

As usual, you get it wrong, gdZiemann. There is BOTH civil and criminal copyright infringement.

Nor is non-commercial use precluded from criminal prosecution. You got that wrong, too. There are two grounds for criminal copyright infringement. From 17 USC 506(a)(1):

Sec. 506. - Criminal offenses

(a) Criminal Infringement. -

Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -

(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, OR

(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.

The reason why there aren't a lot more criminal prosecution is that willfulness is hard to prove in court.

US govt is extremely hipocrit ,forcing globalization all over the world but restricting data flow. copying and redistributing is not a crime, it is knowledge manitanance and imrovement

Spareme said:
"As usual, you get it wrong, gdZiemann."

Yes Spareme, copyright infringement can be civil copyright infringement or civil copyright infringement, however ;
I've known George far longer than you...and George does NOT get things wrong usually. We are all fallible, as you prove by making such a blanket and incorrect statement about George.

Unless you are prepared to at this point, provide every statement George has made on this site and prove, yes, PROVE he "got it wrong", I think it is not only speculative, but highly improper to be making wild statements like that about George's rate of getting things right or wrong .

You may not AGREE with everything gdZiemann says, but that is not an objective means of proving him wrong. You obviously have an opinion of his rate and percentage of making correct statements, which does not seem to be substantiated by the facts at hand.

Yes Spareme, copyright infringement can be civil copyright infringement or civil copyright infringement....was SUPPOSED to read :
"Yes Spareme, copyright infringement can be civil copyright infringement or criminal copyright infringement..."

This was a typo...and I am thus correcting it.

Let's give more on the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act...
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/hr2265.html
" On December 16, 1997, President Clinton signed HR 2265 -- the 'No Electronic Theft' Act -- into law. The act, sponsored by Representative Goodlatte (R-Virginia), was passed in the House on 11/4/97 and in the Senate on 11/13/97.

HR 2265 was viewed as "closing a loophole" in the criminal law. Under the old statutory scheme, people who intentionally distributed copied software over the Internet did not face criminal penalties if they did not profit from their actions.

PUBLIC LAW 105-147 [H.R. 2265]
DECEMBER 16, 1997

105 P.L. 147; 111 Stat. 2678; 1997 Enacted H.R. 2265; 105 Enacted H.R. 2265

An Act To amend the provisions of titles 17 and 18, United States Code, to provide greater copyright protection by amending criminal copyright infringement provisions, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled ,

[*1] SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the 'No Electronic Theft (NET) Act'.

[*2] SEC. 2. CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS.

(a) DEFINITION OF FINANCIAL GAIN- Section 101 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the undesignated paragraph relating to the term 'display', the following new paragraph:

"The term 'financial gain' includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.'.

(b) CRIMINAL OFFENSES- Section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

(a) CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT- Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either--

"(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or

"(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $ 1,000 shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.'.

(c) LIMITATION ON CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS- Section 507(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended by striking 'three' and inserting '5'.

(d) CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT- Section 2319 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (a), by striking 'subsection (b)' and inserting 'subsections (b) and (c)';

(2) in subsection (b)--

(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 'subsection (a) of this section' and inserting 'section 506(a)(1) of title 17'; and

"(B) in paragraph (1)--

(i) by inserting 'including by electronic means,' after 'if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution,'; and

(ii) by striking 'with a retail value of more than $ 2,500' and inserting 'which have a total retail value of more than $ 2,500'; and

(3) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (e) and inserting after subsection (b) the following:

"(c) Any person who commits an offense under section 506(a)(2) of title 17, United States Code--

"(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of $ 2,500 or more;

"(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 6 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and

"(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $ 1,000.

"(d) (1) During preparation of the presentence report pursuant to Rule 32(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, victims of the offense shall be permitted to submit, and the probation officer shall receive, a victim impact statement that identifies the victim of the offense and the extent and scope of the injury and loss suffered by the victim, including the estimated economic impact of the offense on that victim.

"(2) Persons permitted to submit victim impact statements shall include--

"(A) producers and sellers of legitimate works affected by conduct involved in the offense;

"(B) holders of intellectual property rights in such works; and

"(C) the legal representatives of such producers, sellers, and holders.'.

(e) UNAUTHORIZED FIXATION AND TRAFFICKING OF LIVE MUSICAL PERFORMANCES-

Section 2319A of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

"(1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections (e) and (f), respectively; and

"(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:

"(d) VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT- (1) During preparation of the presentence report pursuant to Rule 32(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, victims of the offense shall be permitted to submit, and the probation officer shall receive, a victim impact statement that identifies the victim of the offense and the extent and scope of the injury and loss suffered by the victim, including the estimated economic impact of the offense on that victim.

"(2) Persons permitted to submit victim impact statements shall include--

"(A) producers and sellers of legitimate works affected by conduct involved in the offense;

"(B) holders of intellectual property rights in such works; and

"(C) the legal representatives of such producers, sellers, and holders.'.

(f) TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT GOODS OR SERVICES- Section 2320 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections (e) and (f), respectively; and

"(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:

"(d) (1) During preparation of the presentence report pursuant to Rule 32(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, victims of the offense shall be permitted to submit, and the probation officer shall receive, a victim impact statement that identifies the victim of the offense and the extent and scope of the injury and loss suffered by the victim, including the estimated economic impact of the offense on that victim.

"(2) Persons permitted to submit victim impact statements shall include--

"(A) producers and sellers of legitimate goods or services affected by conduct involved in the offense;

"(B) holders of intellectual property rights in such goods or services; and

"(C) the legal representatives of such producers, sellers, and holders.'.

"(g) DIRECTIVE TO SENTENCING COMMISSION- (1) Under the authority of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-473; 98 Stat. 1987) and section 21 of the Sentencing Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-182; 101 Stat. 1271; 18 U.S.C. 994 note) (including the authority to amend the sentencing guidelines and policy statements), the United States Sentencing Commission shall ensure that the applicable guideline range for a defendant convicted of a crime against intellectual property (including offenses set forth at section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, and sections 2319, 2319A, and 2320 of title 18, United States Code) is sufficiently stringent to deter such a crime and to adequately reflect the additional considerations set forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection.

"(2) In implementing paragraph (1), the Sentencing Commission shall ensure that the guidelines provide for consideration of the retail value and quantity of the items with respect to which the crime against intellectual property was committed.

[*3] SEC. 3. INFRINGEMENT BY UNITED STATES. Section 1498(b) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking 'remedy of the owner of such copyright shall be by action' and inserting 'action which may be brought for such infringement shall be an action by the copyright owner'.

and....
"The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act
Relevant portions of 17 U.S.C. and 18 U.S.C. as amended (redlined)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




17 U.S.C. § 101



§ 101. Definitions

Add the following between "display" and "fixed":

The term "financial gain" includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.

17 U.S.C. §§ 506 & 507



§ 506. Criminal offenses

(a) Criminal Infringement.--Any person who infringes a copyright willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain shall be punished as provided in section 2319 of title 18. either--


for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or

by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
(b) Forfeiture and Destruction.--When any person is convicted of any violation of subsection (a), the court in its judgment of conviction shall, in addition to the penalty therein prescribed, order the forfeiture and destruction or other disposition of all infringing copies or phonorecords and all implements, devices, or equipment used in the manufacture of such infringing copies or phonorecords.

(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice.--Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice.--Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(e) False Representation.--Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(f) Rights of Attribution and Integrity.--Nothing in this section applies to infringement of the rights conferred by section 106A(a).

§ 507. Limitations on actions

(a) Criminal Proceedings.--No criminal proceeding shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three five years after the cause of action arose.

(b) Civil Actions.--No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.

18 U.S.C. § 2319



§ 2319. Criminal infringement of a copyright

(a) Whoever violates section 506(a) (relating to criminal offenses) of title 17 shall be punished as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section and such penalties shall be in addition to any other provisions of title 17 or any other law.

(b) Any person who commits an offense under subsection (a) of this section section 506(a)(1) of title 17--


shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, with a which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;

shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and

shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.
(c) Any person who commits an offense under section 506(a)(2) of title 17--


shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more;

shall be imprisoned not more than 6 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and

shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000;
(d)


During preparation of the presentence report pursuant to Rule 32(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, victims of the offense shall be permitted to submit, and the probation officer shall receive, a victim impact statement that identifies the victim of the offense and the extent and scope of the injury and loss suffered by the victim, including the estimated economic impact of the offense on that victim.

Persons permitted to submit victim impact statements shall include--
(A) producers and sellers of legitimate works affected by conduct involved in the offense;

(B) holders of intellectual property rights in such works; and

(C) the legal representatives of such producers, sellers, and holders.

(c) (e) As used in this section--


the terms "phonorecord" and "copies" have, respectively, the meanings set forth in section 101 (relating to definitions) of title 17; and

the terms "reproduction" and "distribution" refer to the exclusive rights of a copyright owner under clauses (1) and (3) respectively of section 106 (relating to exclusive rights in copyrighted works), as limited by sections 107 through 120, of title 17.
18 U.S.C. § 2319A



§ 2319A. Unauthorized fixation of and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos of live musical performances

(a) Offense.--Whoever, without the consent of the performer or performers involved, knowingly and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain--


fixes the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance in a copy or phonorecord, or reproduces copies or phonorecords of such a performance from an unauthorized fixation;

transmits or otherwise communicates to the public the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance; or

distributes or offers to distribute, sells or offers to sell, rents or offers to rent, or traffics in any copy or phonorecord fixed as described in paragraph (1), regardless of whether the fixations occurred in the United States; shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, or if the offense is a second or subsequent offense, shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both.
(b) Forfeiture and destruction.--When a person is convicted of a violation of subsection (a), the court shall order the forfeiture and destruction of any copies or phonorecords created in violation thereof, as well as any plates, molds, matrices, masters, tapes, and film negatives by means of which such copies or phonorecords may be made. The court may also, in its discretion, order the forfeiture and destruction of any other equipment by means of which such copies or phonorecords may be reproduced, taking into account the nature, scope, and proportionality of the use of the equipment in the offense.

(c) Seizure and forfeiture.--If copies or phonorecords of sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance are fixed outside of the United States without the consent of the performer or performers involved, such copies or phonorecords are subject to seizure and forfeiture in the United States in the same manner as property imported in violation of the customs laws. The Secretary of the Treasury shall, not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, issue regulations to carry out this subsection, including regulations by which any performer may, upon payment of a specified fee, be entitled to notification by the United States Customs Service of the importation of copies or phonorecords that appear to consist of unauthorized fixations of the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance.

(d) Victim impact statement.--


During preparation of the presentence report pursuant to Rule 32(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, victims of the offense shall be permitted to submit, and the probation officer shall receive, a victim impact statement that identifies the victim of the offense and the extent and scope of the injury and loss suffered by the victim, including the estimated economic impact of the offense on that victim.

Persons permitted to submit victim impact statements shall include--
(A) producers and sellers of legitimate works affected by conduct involved in the offense;

(B) holders of intellectual property rights in such works; and

(C) the legal representatives of such producers, sellers, and holders.

(d) (e) Definitions.--As used in this section--


the terms "copy", "fixed", "musical work", "phonorecord", "reproduce", "sound recordings", and "transmit" mean those terms within the meaning of title 17; and

the term "traffic in" means transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value, or make or obtain control of with intent to transport, transfer, or dispose of.
(e) (f) Applicability.--This section shall apply to any Act or Acts that occur on or after the date of the enactment of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

18 U.S.C. § 2320



§ 2320. Trafficking in counterfeit goods or services

(a) Whoever intentionally traffics or attempts to traffic in goods or services and knowingly uses a counterfeit mark on or in connection with such goods or services shall, if an individual, be fined not more than $2,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both, and, if a person other than an individual, be fined not more than $5,000,000. In the case of an offense by a person under this section that occurs after that person is convicted of another offense under this section, the person convicted, if an individual, shall be fined not more than $5,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if other than an individual, shall be fined not more than $15,000,000.

(b) Upon a determination by a preponderance of the evidence that any articles in the possession of a defendant in a prosecution under this section bear counterfeit marks, the United States may obtain an order for the destruction of such articles.

(c) All defenses, affirmative defenses, and limitations on remedies that would be applicable in an action under the Lanham Act shall be applicable in a prosecution under this section. In a prosecution under this section, the defendant shall have the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, of any such affirmative defense.

(d)


During preparation of the presentence report pursuant to Rule 32(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, victims of the offense shall be permitted to submit, and the probation officer shall receive, a victim impact statement that identifies the victim of the offense and the extent and scope of the injury and loss suffered by the victim, including the estimated economic impact of the offense on that victim.

Persons permitted to submit victim impact statements shall include--
(A) producers and sellers of legitimate works affected by conduct involved in the offense;

(B) holders of intellectual property rights in such works; and

(C) the legal representatives of such producers, sellers, and holders.

(d) (e) For the purposes of this section--


the term "counterfeit mark" means--
(A) a spurious mark--

(i) that is used in connection with trafficking in goods or services;

(ii) that is identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, a mark registered for those goods or services on the principal register in the United States Patent and Trademark Office and in use, whether or not the defendant knew such mark was so registered; and

(iii) the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive; or

(B) a spurious designation that is identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, a designation as to which the remedies of the Lanham Act are made available by reason of section 110 of the Olympic Charter Act; but such term does not include any mark or designation used in connection with goods or services of which the manufacturer or producer was, at the time of the manufacture or production in question authorized to use the mark or designation for the type of goods or services so manufactured or produced, by the holder of the right to use such mark or designation;


the term "traffic" means transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value, or make or obtain control of with intent so to transport, transfer, or dispose of;

the term "Lanham Act" means the Act entitled "An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes", approved July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.); and

the term "Olympic Charter Act" means the Act entitled "An Act to incorporate the United States Olympic Association", approved September 21, 1950 (36 U.S.C. 371 et seq.).
(e) (f) Beginning with the first year after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Attorney General shall include in the report of the Attorney General to Congress on the business of the Department of Justice prepared pursuant to section 522 of title 28, an accounting, on a district by district basis, of the following with respect to all actions taken by the Department of Justice that involve trafficking in counterfeit labels for phonorecords, copies of computer programs or computer program documentation or packaging, copies of motion pictures or other audiovisual works (as defined in section 2318 of title 1, criminal infringement of copyrights (as defined in section 2319 of title 1, unauthorized fixation of and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos of live musical performances (as defined in section 2319A of title 1, or trafficking in goods or services bearing counterfeit marks (as defined in section 2320 of title 1:


The number of open investigations.

The number of cases referred by the United States Customs Service.

The number of cases referred by other agencies or sources.

The number and outcome, including settlements, sentences, recoveries, and penalties, of all prosecutions brought under sections 2318, 2319, 2319A, and 2320 of title 18. "

So, I can legally reproduce up to $1000 retail in a 6 month period?

Meaning the RIAA would have to prove over 1000 songs ($1 a piece average retail) of uploading in that 6 month period?

Did I read that correctly?

Some would agree that is a correct reading

"Meanwhile, mroop's link clearly states that one of the four tests for criminal copright infringement is:

4. The defendant infringed at least 10 copies of one or more copyrighted works with a total retail value of more than $2,500 within a 180-day period.

Once again, non-commercial use DOES NOT fall under this definition."

You are wrong. The retail value is the value of the item. It doesn't matter if you give it away. Read it again.

So what's the retail value of a song?

99 cents. Or is it 88 cents? Or are the rfirst 100 million free, thanks to Pepsi.

Those people with only 750 files (the new "egregious" qualifier) have less than $750 in total retail value.

mroop's "law" requires $2500. And spareme's quote required $1000.

And, of course, they can offer the copyrights to these 750 songs in court just to prove that they do actual possess a copyright. After all, if you didn't register it, punitive damages cannot be applied.

That's why the RIAA settled the mp3.com case. Robertson wanted the RIAA to cough up the copyrights -- all of them.

Not actionable.

hahahahahahaha

Excellent thread, once again.. Mroop has given us the points of law for the sake of his argument.. However, gd points out that in defense, the actual worth of a song is, at the least, malleable. I always wondered how the labels would prove copyright ownership, anyway.. given the sloppy nature of accounting that they have, So, gdZiemann, I gotta admit.. a good defense lawyer could take this apart pretty quickly.. by the way, where are the RIAA protest cases in the courts? I don't see any evidence of legal resistance here..

Because everyone has swallowed the paranoia bait.

Since we're talking about the value of a song, how do you determine the value of a recording that is out of print? Since it's not being sold for any price does that mean it is valueless and therefore fair game? Or can the copyright holder of the recording arbitrarily affix any price they deem to be the "value" of the recording in question after the fact? Or a third possibility could be that they could affix the current market value of a used CD of the recording as the value of the recording, but that value could wildly swing within a large range depending on which used CD seller you are asking for an opinion on the value from. Even the part of the country you are in could change the value of an out of print recording. A band with out of print recordings may be extremely popular in California and fetch $20-$30 for a used copy of their out of print CD, where the same album could be a flop in Florida and fetch all of $1.99.

Where I think the laws that George & mroop are mentioning are failing is that they need to set some fairly clear guidelines on the value of a recording, as George pointed out already. My suggestion would be to base the value of the recording on the official list price of the recording in question at the time of the alleged infringement. So, if you distribute 1 copy of 1 song from a 10 track CD listing at $10, the value of your infringement would be $1. If the list price of the CD should happen to be $15 then your infringement would be valued at $1.50. If the recording is out of print, the copyright owner is stating by default that the recording has no value to him/her and therefore a value of $0 should be attatched to the infringement. Problem is, that would make too much sense for anybody to ever seriously consider "etching in stone"!

I think anyone caught commiting so called copyright infringement should get 10 years in jail followed by getting fried in the electric chair and eleventy billion dollars in fines.

in school i did take the time to look up the legal aspect of copyright, ect... and really most of us are safe.

Hurting the economy? not as much as homosexuals, the RIAA, and illegal immagrants do. the riaa isn't even american anymore so there is absolutly not economic impact on using p2p networks to get the songs we want for free.

Child pornography: Child pornography is disgusting, and with a good p2p client you can keep from reciving falsified results taht contain porn, or viruses, it's called Shareaza, Limewire, Gnucleus, and i think morpheus has simmular filters too. The anwser is to stop using old, three year old FastTrack network, it's been almost three years since a true innovation has been made in the FastTrack network code, KaZaA is out of date.

geeze FBI, looks like i bursted your buble again, nlm mln