Source

Back in May, the Justice Department issued some proposed legislation to tighten US intellectual property laws and to criminalize some forms of "attempted infringement." Now, legislation based on the proposals has been introduced in Congress by Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH), complete with stiffer jail terms for violaters and the controversial "attempted infringement" clause.

H.R. 3155, the Intellectual Property Enhanced Criminal Enforcement Act of 2007, aims widely. Everything gets a section: unauthorized recording of films in theaters, circumventing copy protection, trafficking in counterfeit goods. The bill even directs the Attorney General to send federal prosecutors to take up permanent residence in Hong Kong and Budapest and specifies the number and makeup of FBI investigative teams.

In most cases, the bill appears to simply double existing penalties. Section 12 alone, for instance, makes a 10 year prison term in a 20 year term, three years into six, five into 10, and six into 12. Poof! More prison time!

One of the bill's controversial features is the fact that people can be charged with criminal copyright infringement even if such infringement has not actually taken place. "Any person who attempts to commit an offense under paragraph (1) shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt," says the bill.

While copyright infringement is sometimes believed to be solely a civil matter, that's not the case. US Code 17, section 506 (a) spells out the conditions for criminal infringement under which the government can actually do the prosecuting, and they are quite modest. The infringement must be willful and the material in question must have a total retail value of over $1,000. This wouldn't be a difficult threshold for many P2P users to clear, except for the fact that this section also requires that the infringement be done "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain."

The attempted infringement clause actually falls under this criminal infringement statute, meaning that it won't apply to file-sharing unless the courts suddenly take a hugely expansive view of "commercial advantage or private financial gain," and it's unlikely the government has some new interest in such cases.

The bill is full of the sort of things that groups like the EFF aren't going to like, and in fact the EFF has already issued a statement condemning the legislation. One of their concerns is that a small change to the law could have big effects on casual file-sharers for a different reason: P2P users could face greater penalties for infringement after statutory damages are expanded.

The bill allows "a judge to dole out damages for each separate piece of a derivative work or compilation, rather than treating it as one work," wrote Derek Slater, "for example, copying an entire album could translate into damages for each individual track, even if the copyrights in those tracks aren't separately registered."

I'm wondering when the no cruel or unusual punishement with be brought up. Theoretically a 20 year prison sentence to copying one track.

Yeah, can you imagine: a first-time filesharing offense getting about as long a sentence as a first-time rapist?
Hell, I don't even want to start ranting about this issue, it's so exasperating.
On to somebody else, the next user comment.

[exhaling, but teeth still gnashed together]

What do you expect?

The recording industry has deep pockets to pay off the politicians so that they can make an example out of everyone. That way they can restore the CD and their old business model to its fame and glory again. [shrug]

You can do less time for manslaughter too... That's gotta be confusing for the kids growing up today who are yet to fully understand the law. "Hey son, I don't mind you going out and blowing someone's head off but if you copy music I'm gonna beat your ass!"...

Does this mean if you were to turn up at a cinema with a camera in your pocket you could be taken away in handcuffs and sent down? How utterly dumb... So no great shock there for the (supposedly) greatest nation on the planet... Oh wait, give it time and it'll spread elsewhere too.

If I was a member of the Hong Kong government, I'd take steps to exclude outsiders from interfering in any way with my system, including deportation. What are the US government going to do? Stamp their feet and push them out of the WTO, or surround them with ships and threaten to blow them off the map? More than bloody likely.

Seems to me that things like this are being pushed into the government's hands when it comes to prosecution because there the music, movie and drug industries have almost total control unlike in the lower courts... Viva la democracy!

Since they're not capable of proving actual infringement in court, they want a new law that is more vague. That way they can scare more people into paying them a "settlement" for a "crime" that cannot be proven.

Right, George.
It appears the RIAA honchos will consider anything to avoid
a) being fair;
b) correcting their outdated business model.

Right said Fred. That's the problem in a nutshell right there.

The RIAA care about one thing only: moving CD units, whether the music contained therein is total sh*t or not. The internet is too wild and unruly to control, so they'd be happier if it just was shut down altogether! The RIAA are impeding the progress of society!