"A proposal that the Senate may vote on as early as next week would let federal prosecutors file civil lawsuits against suspected copyright infringers, with fines reaching tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The so-called Pirate Act is raising alarms among copyright lawyers and lobbyists for peer-to-peer firms, who have been eyeing the recording industry's lawsuits against thousands of peer-to-peer users with trepidation. The Justice Department, they say, could be far more ambitious.

What's new:
A proposal that the full Senate could vote on as early as next week would let federal prosecutors file civil lawsuits against suspected copyright infringers.

Copyright lawyers and lobbyists for peer-to-peer companies, who have been eyeing the recording industry's lawsuits against peer-to-peer users with trepidation, warn that the Justice Department could be far more ambitious.

One influential proponent of the Pirate Act is urging precisely that. "Tens of thousands of continuing civil enforcement actions might be needed to generate the necessary deterrence," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said when announcing his support for the bill. "I doubt that any nongovernmental organization has the resources or moral authority to pursue such a campaign."
PLEASE READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT
http://news.com.com/'Pirate+Act'+raises+civil+rights+concerns/2100-1027_3-5220480.html?tag=sas.email
---------------------------------SNIP----------------------------------------------
We've talked about the PIRATE ACT before...but, like a shoe with dog poo embedded in the treads, the smell has resurfaced as people like Hatch keep pushing it forward.

I found the following quote from the article by Declan McCullough quite telling...
""It represents yet another point in another very long line of major corporate copyright interests pushing for and receiving what amounts to significant corporate welfare," said Adam Eisgrau, a lobbyist for the P2P United trade association. "This legislation literally offloads the cost of enforcing copyrights traditionally borne by the copyright holder onto the federal government and therefore the taxpayers."

Last week, the Pirate Act had been considered for a floor vote under a process normally restricted for noncontroversial measures. But the vote didn't happen, which one foe of the bill attributed to opposition from Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican from Minnesota."

I found this small quote also interesting
"Potential P2P prosecutions
Underlying the public jockeying over the Pirate Act is a classic political war of wills between the federal government's legislative and executive branches.

Under a 1997 law called the No Electronic Theft Act, federal prosecutors can file criminal charges against peer-to-peer users who make a large number of songs available for download. A July 2002 letter from prominent congressmen to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft urged the prosecution of Americans who "allow mass copying from their computer over peer-to-peer networks."

But not one peer-to-peer criminal prosecution has taken place in the United States. The Justice Department has indicated that it won't target peer-to-peer networks for two reasons: Imprisoning file-swapping teens on felony charges isn't the department's top priority, and it's always difficult to make criminal charges stick.

The Pirate Act was crafted to respond to the Justice Department's concern. "Federal prosecutors have been hindered in their pursuit of pirates by the fact that they were limited to bringing criminal charges with high burdens of proof," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said in March. "Prosecutors can rarely justify bringing criminal charges, and copyright owners have been left alone to fend for themselves, defending their rights only where they can afford to do so. In a world in which a computer and an Internet connection are all the tools you need to engage in massive piracy, this is an intolerable predicament."
(from the source in the article)

I find interesting is that the government should have no business in civil litigation. I wonder how the bill is read. could it be used by other private companies to pursue civil litigation not related to copyright infringment? wrongful death suits etc.... if it's specific to copyright infringement then could there be grounds to declare it unconstitutional as it is not balanced? I don't know the law but it smells of something not quite right

if this is associated with the pirate act it is one more example how the government is abusing it's authority.

Lots of counterattacks coming in from public policy defenders. We'll post them as they come in. This legislation is being force fed onto full vote without debate. Congress persons are back home for the week. This is a typical manner of flying under the radar to avoid public scrutiny.

A well-known maneuver used by Republicans to count heads and meet on legislation without inviting the Democrats to participate.

In an era known as gridlock, Congress is polarized and can't muster sufficient votes to elect a dogcatcher. We were looking forward to the close of session of 108th and weathering another year without passing legislation that is open-emded and alarmingly stomping on the Consititution. In fact looking forward to a potential Regime Change in the White House.

This is how the DMCA finally passed, exhausted legislators trying to go home. "For christ's sake, pass the thing, let the courts sort it out." Which is why five years later we're still bitterly gridlocked on the DMCA and the economy has been hammered.

I am loading my gun.

Last week, the Pirate Act had been considered for a floor vote under a process normally restricted for noncontroversial measures. But the vote didn't happen, which one foe of the bill attributed to opposition from Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican from Minnesota."

So, does this mean that Norm got off his damn fence for a second? He (and all the other fence-sitters) MUST realize that that "cozy little bench on top of the fence" has been removed and a BARBED WIRE FENCE is all they are sitting on now.

Shmoo

I am putting the TRUE Constitution in my pocket and LEAVING if this damn thing passes.

Are you people in Utah IDIOTS??? Why the hell do you keep electing that moron???

ok

...NOW I'm mad.

The SEC files civil suits all the time.

I welcome it. "Bring it on" I am sick and tired of everyone pussyfooting around. Let's do this. Let's fight and see if the public is really going to stand for this much government intrusion into our lives.

Did anyone find this comment by Hatch hypocritical to the highest level:

"I doubt that any nongovernmental organization has the resources or moral authority to pursue such a campaign."

If he really believes our government is moral, he's living in fantasy world. Let's ask him if this morality includes letting Enron executives walk free after stealing from Americans, while Martha Stewart goes to jail for saving herself money. What a load of crap!!!

I KEEPING SAYING THIS AND I'M GOING TO KEEP SAYING THIS UNTIL I'M BLUE IN THE FACE!

WHAT WE DO OUR OWN PRIVATE HOME COMPUTERS IS NOBODY'S FUCKING BUSINESS!

IT'S NONE OF THE RECORDING INDUSTRY'S BUSINESS!

IT'S NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS!

IT'S OUR BUSINESS AND OUR BUSINESS ALONE, AND IF YOU RIAA AND GOVERNMENT ASSHOLES DON'T LIKE IT, WELL THEN TOUGH MOTHERFUCKING SHIT!

I'M GOING TO KEEP DOWNLOADING MUSIC FOR AS LONG AS FEEL LIKE IT, AND THERE'S NOBODY OUT THERE THAT IS GOING TO STOP ME!!!!!!!!!!

Leflaw had a nice meeting with Leahy a few weeks ago. Leahy encouraged Dmusic to keep up the efforts of promoting new music as in "you're doing the most important thing!"

Many of us are puzzled why and how Leahy hitched himself to the RIAA bandwagon. A few years ago Leahy had on his website a photo shaking ahnds with Shawn Fanning and a clip from CNET. Leahy was the Seanate counterpart to Boucher's efforts in the House.

Leahy is great friends with EmmyLou Harris and is deeply involved with Vietnam Veterans and World Without Landmines.

Why is he part of this legislation? I hope someone has a chance to shine some light into his brain.

How come the government is so determined to use taxpayer money to illegally prosecute taxpayers, when they refuse to investigate the monopolistic practices of the big five recording companies?

Why doesn't someone write Leahy and ask him why he has taken an uncharacteristically ANTI-CONSUMER STANCE?

I have gone to calling the efforts of the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA, Anti-Consumer,
and our efforts, are pro-Consumer. I believe this takes the rhetorical high ground, and also, really represents what we are about.

The RIAA,MPAA, and BSA, are pro-corporate corruption...and it is about time ALL politicians come out with public statements where they are relative to the mass of voters, who are digital consumers....

If you get a non-commital letter from a congress person talking about the importance of protecting intellectual property and copyright, I say do this.

Write them back, include their verbage, and in big letters (either handwritten or computer generated), write...
WHY HAVE YOU CHOSEN TO BE ANTI-CONSUMER?

~JUST MY OPINION...
CODE

Anyone here from Vermont?

They don't really want to see thousands of filesharing taxpayers thrown in jail. They would however like the chance to throw a couple of filesharing taxpayers in jail as a SCARE tactic. Now, who else uses SCARE tactics? oh yes, TERRORISTS. So, they would not only be helping the riaa be guilty of extortion, but acts of terrorism as well.

"allow mass copying from their computer over peer-to-peer networks."

copying of what?

is p2p illegal now (even if you don't infringe copyright)?

what if I allow people to copy a song I wrote and recorded myself over p2p? This just criminalises faithful consumers and innocent computer users.

!

Is there a way I can write to congress so they will read the letter and take it into account without having to put my real name and address on it?

Have most of you who have written a letter to congress about your stance on these issues recieved a non-commital letter from some congress person about the importance of protecting intellectual property and copyrights?? I think what CodeWarrior said to do is probably a good idea, but saying soemthing like that is all the more reason why I don't want them to know exactly who it came from.

I don't think anyone would take seriously an anonymous letter. You can write to "Congress" or a particular representative. Your best audience is your own representative.

Are you in prison or something?

NO of course I'm not in prison!!! I just don't want to put my name on a letter I send to congress because I'm worried about drawing attention to myself.

Is there a way I could send a letter with my name on it to someone who then sends it without my name and address on it to congress? That way, someone could still verify the letter was from a unique person and not the same person writing multiple different anonymous letters.

I think this may be a very good idea to try and do. Lets try and get the message out to congress that we WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANY OF THEM who vote yes for any kind of legislation to pass like this. Even if the ones who voted for it to pass didn't write this kind of FASCIST legislation, voting for it to pass is bad enough in my mind, even if they weren't aware of what they were really voting for. That should send a message that politicians better take a close look at something before they decide to vote yes for it to pass!!!

I actually did write a letter to all of my state representatives in Congress. I listed questions regarding issues I had with the direction of our country.

In regards to the RIAA, I asked "Why is the RIAA given the right to do illegal searches of a person’s computer, bypassing the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution completely?"

Out of approximately 22 letters mailed, I received two responses. One respondant said he couldn't address the issues, since he didn't represent my district. The other, bypassed the issue and gave me rambling rhetoric about his stance against the Iraq situation.

I'm disheartened to write anymore. I really think they either:

a.) don't read the letters

or

b.) have aides read and respond with appropriate bolierplate garbage that has no meaning or worth.

Does anyone have an idea of what to d next?

Write to your own state represenatives: you have one representative in the House of Representatives, and each state has two U.S. Senators.
You will get the most attention from your own state representative.

You could also try calling their district offices.

hbkfan:

That really sucks after writing to your congressman how they don't respond.

As for what you asked, I think the RIAA is just searching for songs publicly available for others to download and thus they would be able to get away with it because there not actually searching private folders on your computer illegally. When people say downloaders are being sued, it's really people who download that their downloads are saved into a shared publicly accessible folder by default. That's how I think in reality they've caught people. I'm sure when they have used the words downloaders, that is part of their fear campaign to put terror in people's minds because many of the people who they've sued probably don't know much about computers and weren't aware there downloads were shared by default for the public to access and download from them.

it's pretty sad state in this country when there's so much fear, Americans are afraid to write their own representitives

Frankly, I would be afraid to write our mayor, hizzoner the king, Richard M. Daley.

ahh Ken Livingstone (Mayor of London) is funny...

insane, but funny...

I thouhgt y'all knew that mail service is still not happening in the DC Congress. Ditto fedEx. Try writing your district office in your own state.

Anwya, the point is to deliver a blozzard of protests. They do claim to be intimidated by an outpouring.

yeh

lol @ Emoceon: "yeh"

I find it's best to use your cell phone (or someone else's cell phone) and call their office. If you call enough, you get ahold of someone who is at least directly under the representative, sometimes (if you are lucky) you can even talk to the rep themselves.

But before you go and do that, make sure you are ready to give a speech. Every time I call, I wait for a responce that might be against personal rights, because I have a list in front of me that I can use as a rebuttal.

Don't be afraid to debate with your reps, that's what they are paid to do.

This website should setup an online petition sign for these type of this, or coordinate with EFF or MoveOn.org. I really think this site should start on online petetion for the government to bring an anti-trust investigation to the RIAA. If you could send the a petition of 10,000 or more signatures, they would have no option but to take action.

It is indeed troubling that our government doesn't seem to give a damn about what the people say or want. I know I empathize everything everyone is saying.
I have felt the same way Prideful has about not wanting to be targeted, and that goes a long way when citizens are afraid to speak out because they may be targetted. I also have felt so frustrated when I write and write and write and either get no response , a canned response, or something which shows they just ignored what I wrote to them about completely.

Frankly, I would be afraid to write our mayor, hizzoner the king, Richard M. Daley.

carla I feel sorry for you having to live in a city with such a moron as mayor. Mr. Daley is a real piece of work. Krusty the clown would make a better mayor.....

Connection Rejected: 149.101.1.32 - US Dept of Justice (05-26-2004 @ 16:35:1
Connection Rejected: 68.163.90.10 - tst inc riaa host (05-26-2004 @ 16:35:1

:[ Ive been recieving these every other hr for the past 2 days now.. Im feeling paranoid.

Code....check your Yahoo mail.

crackedup: I've been getting hammered by those jackasses as well this evening. When will they ever learn to leave me the fucl alone??!?!?!?!?!

"Tens of thousands of continuing civil enforcement actions might be needed to generate the necessary deterrence," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said when announcing his support for the bill. "I doubt that any nongovernmental organization has the resources or moral authority to pursue such a campaign."

Uh, wait a minute here. If Hatch doubts that any nongov organization has "moral authority" to conduct tens of thousands of civil enforcement actions, then why would the RIAA have the moral authority to conduct hundreds of civil enforcement actions (or maybe the RIAA is in the thousands by now).

On the face of it this comment is absurd. That is like saying Hitler may not have had the moral authority to murder millions in concentration camps, but perhaps if he had only killed a few thousand than that would be OK.

I don't think Hatch was thinking when he made that statement.

I have been getting hit with the same ones as soon as I get to this site.

I also got one more....
Connection Rejected: 146.82.174.10 - RIAA PGIPDB (05-26-2004 @ 20:43:33)

Is them hitting you when you go to this site specifically legal?

The DOJ pursuing filesharers?

This is good news! We should all rejoice! This obviously means all the terrorists have been exterminated & the U.S. is now safe.

Orrin also supported a bill that would allow the destruction of computers of pirates, IIRC.

I'm pretty sure he's probably just selling out to all the groups that give him a lot of money.

P.S. Orrin is a nut.

OK people, stop dawdling and write to your senators! It is the least you can do. The bill is S.2237, and maybe someone can call up the official title of this bill. I noted in my emails that it was sponsored by Leahy and Hatch. I told them that they should oppose it because it was a poor use of taxpayer dollars and the Justice Department's time -- in a time of war and terror threats. I also mentioned fair use of materials that people have legally obtained, but I think the buzz-word "anti-consumer" is a very good term. I wish I had read Code's post before I wrote.

You can hurl invectives anytime you want, right here. Put some of that energy to use and let your Senators -- both of them -- know that at least one of their constituents is paying attention to what they are voting on.

Filesharing is apparently now the number one priority and terrorism is #2. Gotta protect that cartel you know.

autodidact........Do you happen to have a URL to S.2237 that you could post for us to view the verbage of this bill?

Disregard autodidact....found it....

S. 2237 Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation (PIRATE) Act of 2004

http://www.publicknowledge.org/content/legislation/s2237


There is a link at this URL for file in pdf format.

ALL,
Below is a letter I sent to both senators, my congressman and to The Pres. Feel free to use it and or edit to your taste.

Dear (Congresscritter)

Please say "NO" to S. 2237 Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation (PIRATE) Act of 2004, a bill introduced by Mr. Leahy and Mr. Hatch.

This bill is inappropriate for the following reasons:

It misdirects our taxpayer dollars to allow for funding of civil litigation. Civil litigation is just that, civil, and should not be handled by our government using taxpayer money, but handled and funded by those wishing to commence civil litigation. Our government should not be subsidizing civil litigation period.

It misdirects the resources of the Department of Justice at a time when anti-terrorism efforts should be our first priority. To add one more thing to their plate would greatly reduce the ability to fight terrorism effectively.

This bill seems to be very anti-consumer in nature and it's constitutionality is questionable. Please take into consideration of how this affects and/or might affect the rights of all Americans and consumers.

Please Vote NO to this bill and thank you for your time.

boggieman,

Nice letter. But I suspect that Sen. Hatch might argue that filesharing IS terrorism.

Yeah Bufo...you're probably right on that one! Thanks.

http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=2906

You can also use the form letter at EFF at the link above.