] But from what I can tell, the penalties laid out for
] downloading one season of a TV show with BitTorrent are
] much harsher than if you actually stole a DVD set of the
] same show from a government store. I lay out a practical
] example in detail below, but to cut to the chase: For
] stealing the DVD you could face no more than up to 1 year
] imprisonment and up to a $100,000 fine; for downloading
] the same material you could face statutory damages of up
] to $3,300,000, costs and attorney's fees (ie: the other
] guy's attorneys), as well as up to 1 year imprisonment,
] and up to a $100,000 fine.

An interesting analysis of the punishments set forth for shoplifting a physical item versus downloading a tv show off of bit torrent. I like the summary at the bottom, where Winona Ryder's shoplifting experience is used as an example.

Dolemite

Off The Shelf - Stealing is cheaper than downloading

Decius wrote:
] Dolemite wrote:
] ] k wrote:
] ] ] ] Now, any Californian who shares files with more than 10
] ] ] ] people must add their e-mail address to the file. Those
] ] ] ] who break this law could be fined up to $2,500, spend a
] ] ] ] year in jail or both.
] ] ]
] ] ] Anonymous speech on the Internet is now illegal in
] ] California.
] ] ] The MPAA is coming to your state next.
] ]
] ] Alright, so I know that I'm in the minority here, but the
] law
] ] isn't prohibiting anonymous speech on the internet.
]
] Do you have the text of the bill? I could not find it this
] morning. The articles all seem to say someone distributing
] "files" to more then 10 people.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_1506&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen

Here's the pertinent info from the Senate analysis:
This bill (1) requires a person who
electronically disseminates (e.g., through the Internet) a
commercial recording or audiovisual work to include his/her
true e-mail address, (2) defines a misdemeanor crime, with
a maximum jail term and fine of one year and $2,500
respectively, where a person fails to make such a
disclosure, (3) defines certain exceptions from the
disclosure requirements, and (4) sunsets in 2010.

RE: Wired News: California bans anonymous speech on the Internet

k wrote:
] ] Now, any Californian who shares files with more than 10
] ] people must add their e-mail address to the file. Those
] ] who break this law could be fined up to $2,500, spend a
] ] year in jail or both.
]
] Anonymous speech on the Internet is now illegal in California.
] The MPAA is coming to your state next.

Alright, so I know that I'm in the minority here, but the law isn't prohibiting anonymous speech on the internet. It's prohibiting anonymous re-distribution of copyrighted material on the internet. The bill that I read had nothing in there prohibiting one from distributing either public domain or their own material (speech) over the internet. According to the article the bill could limit anonymous speech on the internet, but at this point it doesn't. There has to be some level of compromise between all out copyright chaos and strict enforcement. I think the limit may be a little low at 10 - especially if it's considered a cumulative total over time, rather than all at once - but it still allows people to share with a few friends under the basic intent of "fair use".

Yes, the MPAA and RIAA are evil cartels. Yes, they screw the real artists and creative people. No, putting the screw to them doesn't help the artists who were originally screwed. I'm not being soft on the cartels, I'm just trying to think of a way that we can find a middle ground that is realistic.

Dolemite

RE: Wired News: California bans anonymous speech on the Internet

This is a rather interesting read after all the recent press and essays regarding the increased surveillance of society. I would have to agree that with the proliferation of cameras all over the world there is a better system of checks-and-balances with those who are supposed to be protecting us, but I'd still rather have more privacy altogether. Oh, if only the concept of ethics was enough to make people behave well...

] In the mid-'90s, when I began writing "The Transparent
] Society," it seemed dismaying to note that Great Britain
] had almost 150,000 CCD police cameras scanning public
] streets. Today, they number in the millions.
]
] In the United States, a similar proliferation, though
] just as rapid, has been somewhat masked by a different
] national tradition -- that of dispersed ownership. As
] pointed out by UC-San Diego researcher Mohan Trivedi,
] American constabularies have few cameras of their own.
] Instead, they rely on vast numbers of security monitors
] operated by small and large companies, banks, markets and
] private individuals, who scan ever larger swaths of urban
] landscape. Nearly all of the footage that helped solve
] the Oklahoma City bombing and the D.C. sniper episode --
] as well as documenting the events of 9/11 -- came from
] unofficial sources.
]
]
] This unique system can be both effective and inexpensive
] for state agencies, especially when the public is
] inclined to cooperate, as in searches for missing
] children. Still, there are many irksome drawbacks to
] officials who may want more pervasive and direct
] surveillance. For one thing, the present method relies
] upon high levels of mutual trust and goodwill between
] authorities and the owners of those cameras -- whether
] they be convenience-store corporations or
] videocam-equipped private citizens. Moreover, while many
] crimes are solved with help from private cameras, more
] police are also held accountable for well-documented
] lapses in professional behavior.
]
]
] This tattletale trend began with the infamous beating of
] Rodney King, more than a decade ago, and has continued at
] an accelerating pace. Among recently exposed events were
] those that aroused disgust (the tormenting of live birds
] in the Pilgrim's Pride slaughterhouse) and shook
] America's stature in the world (the prisoner abuse by
] jailers at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq). Each time the
] lesson is the same one: that professionals should attend
] to their professionalism, or else the citizens and
] consumers who pay their wages will find out and --
] eventually -- hold them accountable.

We will watch the watchers

] However, instead of thanking Adam for his promotion of
] their product, officials at MGM and the MPAA have chosen
] to pressure the FBI into pursuing criminal charges. Adam
] was first tipped off about the investigation when the FBI
] raided his and his fiancee's apartment in May of 2002 and
] seized thousands of dollars worth of computer equipment.
] Adam later received a copy of the affidavit filed in
] support of the search warrant, and was shocked to
] discover that this document, prepared by the FBI,
] contained significant amounts of erroneous and misleading
] information. For example, two social security numbers
] were listed for Adam, one of which is not his. References
] were made to a cease and desist letter sent by the MPAA
] to an email address that did not exist. His online
] friendship with other Stargate fans across the globe was
] portrayed as an international conspiracy against the
] MPAA. And perhaps most disturbing of all, it was later
] revealed that the FBI invoked a provision of the USA
] Patriot Act to obtain financial records from his ISP. The
] FBI's abuse of its powers did not stop there. When they
] seized Adam's computer equipment, he was given written
] documentation stating that it would be returned within 60
] days. The equipment that they did return did not arrive
] until more than 8 months later, and only then after much
] prodding from his lawyer. Much of it was damaged beyond
] repair - one laptop had a shattered LCD screen, an empty
] tape backup drive was ripped apart for no apparent
] reason, his fiancee's iBook was badly damaged when it was
] pried apart with a screwdriver.

1. Welcome to the new world of criminal copyright prosecutions. This reminds me of operation Sun Devil. The FBI is usually far more professional then this. Apparently they've assigned a bunch of idiots to their copyright sqaud, which is reasonable at first glance in that its not very important, but ultimately a mistake because this issue is too controversial and too visible to be handled by thugs. These guys aren't going to stop behaving this way until a judge throws the book at them (as occured to the Chicago Secret Service agents who raided Steve Jackson Games). Therefore, I suggesting holding on to your seats. There will be a bunch more stories where this came from, and as the net is a hell of a lot louder then it was in 1991 you can expect the FBI to feel some very serious pressure over the issue as the horrors mount up.

2. The seizure of thousands of dollars worth of equipment, the destruction of said equipment, and then the choice of legal venue meant to maximize the financial costs associated with trial... This has all the earmarks of an investigation that is intended to be punative in and of itself. Punative investigations are unconstitutional.

3. This is why copyright issues need to remain in civil courts and not criminal courts. We don't need our security forces out smashing computers for the MPAA. There is absolutely no reason why the MPAA couldn't have filed a civil motion in this case in the jurisdiction the actual website was in.

It seems clear that a properly delivered cease and desist letter would have solved the problem here. No fuss, no muss. Handling crimes like this in this manner is extremely expensive for taxpayers and tends to disrupt and destroy innocent people's lives when they accidentally become the target of it.

Moving copyright cases into the criminal justice system was bad, bad, bad law. It seems like we're going to get a stiff lesson in why.

Stargate Information Archive - Federal Charges Filed Against SG-1 Archive

] Several months ago, my husband and I received two rebate
] checks simply for having children, all part of the Jobs
] and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, an
] economy-stimulating incentive. Congress approved this
] quickie tax cut so we'd all go out and buy Pottery Barn
] lamps and Gap boot-cut trousers and then presumably the
] economy, and we, would be saved. Instead, I cashed the
] checks, paid off some bills, and then tucked my dignity
] under my arm and went to file for food stamps.

We've all ready plenty of stories about how the economy sucks, but this article strikes a chord because the author has such a great command of imagery. I suggest you read it simply because of the clear picture that she is able to paint.

Falling down

Are blogs the next White Man's Club? This article focuses on how the Dean Campaign has become self-aware that despite the fact that they have garnered incredible support... despite the fact that Howard Dean has a lot of appeal to minorities, the people showing up at the support meetings are DOMINANTLY white. Anecdotally speaking,
there are stories of there being one black person at a meeting.

Is having the time to look up political candidate web pages a luxury of whites? More like a luxury of the white collar worker. Most of the people that I know who go to the library for their internet access couldn't care less about politics, white or not, but they all do share one thing in common - they can't afford a computer and internet access at home.

"PLEASE stop having Meetups at cute white middle-class cafes where everyone looks like you! Each meetup should be scheduled in a place where the people walking by and wondering what's going on are from demographic groups that are harder to reach -- namely, either minorities or the elderly. EVERY retirement home has a meeting room. Have your meetups THERE. Is it sexy? No, but it will reach a group that is eager to be a part of the process. Have your meetups in restaurants in the Hispanic part of town or whatever other group you need to reach. Make the Meetup ITSELF work for you, instead of going there and THEN talking about what to do ...!"

Josh's post illustrates how astute many of Dean's supporters are about what it will take to get their man into the White House next year. Even though Dean is now thought of as the Democratic front-runner, many in his online community are constantly chiding each other not to become complacent about the task ahead. The danger that supporters appear most wary of is "preaching to the choir" -- bringing the pro-Dean message only to folks who are already inclined to accept it. Indeed, Richard Hoefer calls this the biggest pitfall of Dean's blog strategy. "I've been at odds with Dean for America because I criticize them for being too blog-centric," he says. "I think they preach to the converted, and it bugs me because I think they're missing the boat. I think Dean has incredible appeal to blacks, Latinos, minorities -- but the message hasn't gotten out there yet because they have been too focused on the blog."

Dean's army goes offline

Lenny Bruce was a comedian that dared to push the limits in his acts, being arrested several times for obscenity. However, the same laws that were used to prosecute him for using the word "cocksuckers" on stage still exist. Many might think that with the evolution of society, those laws would be useless, but read on...

Lenny Bruce's legal ordeal is one of the most shameful chapters in the cultural history of postwar America -- a persecution that obsessed Bruce, drained his creative energies, bankrupted him, and allowed the demons that always haunted him to take over. Bruce died of a morphine overdose in 1966, but as Vincent Cuccia, one of the New York D.A.'s who prosecuted Bruce's last obscenity case, said, "We drove him into poverty and bankruptcy and then murdered him. We all knew what we were doing. We used the law to kill him."

On Aug. 7, Ashcroft's Justice Department announced a 10-count indictment against a porno production company called Extreme Associates. The owners of the company, Robert Zicari and Janet Romano (aka "Lizzie Borden") were charged with distributing obscene films and video clips through the U.S. mail and the Internet. The move was expected. The conservative groups that regard society's tolerance for pornography as a sign of hideous moral decay, and that make up the Bush administration's political base, have been critical of Bush for not launching an anti-porn war sooner. Attorney General Ashcroft is a fervent born-again Christian who met with anti-porn crusaders before Sept. 11; his planned crusade was derailed by the terrorist attacks. (Under Clinton, not surprisingly, prosecuting porn was a low priority -- and during those years, the industry took off in meteoric fashion.)

Lenny Bruce died for our sins

Oh, how I wish I were in the Bay Area just so I could go see this... sure, it may be depressing for some, but I think that some of our San Francisco memers should post a review for us!

To the kitschy annals of dot-com nostalgia, add the endearing farce of Rentalpuppy.com, a saga that starts and ends at Starbucks, with $50 million vanishing in between. Consultants, V.C.s, investment bankers and the dot-commers themselves are chewed up and sung out in a giddy production, the kind of show where "Norton anti-virus" is earnestly invoked in a lovers' duet.

Based in a SOMA loft with all the necessary office distractions, like foosball, air hockey, cellphones ringing to the tune of "Baby Got Back," Rental Puppy, as a company, seems to be mostly about office workers IM-ing their friends all morning before going out for a high-tech burrito, while they wait to vest. "I'm vesting. I'm vesting. Just four more years, then I'll be resting."

The real villain here isn't the hapless dot-commers themselves, whose main crime is just getting caught up in it all -- and, hey, who wasn't? -- but rather a nefarious investment banker from Stevenson Roberts, whose sterling credentials include sitting on the board of Enron and WorldCom, and the V.C.s so sexist that they have to have everything a woman says repeated to them by a man so that they can hear it.

It's never too early for dot-com nostalgia

Rattle wrote:
] Oh, yeah, this was such a GREAT idea the first time around
] when it was called DIVX.
]
] The discs stop working when a process similar to rusting
] makes them unreadable. The discs start off red, but when they
] are taken out of the package, exposure to oxygen turns the
] coating black and makes it impenetrable by a DVD laser.
]
] You get a week from most rental places. I don't see what the
] consumer appeal is going to be with these. They are not going
] to sell.
]
] Oh, wait, I know.. You can buy them, take them home, and copy
] them with the DVD burners that are starting to become cheap..

Well, the problem with that is that currently there are no dual layer burners - after all, DVD-9's and DVD-18's are mastered as separate passes on the disc. What does that mean for copying? Well, the studios have finally given us *so much* content (yay!) that it won't fit on one side of a 4.7 GB DVD+/-R. You can fit a < 2 hour movie with only one audio track on a single disc, so you'd lose all of those special features.

Some may ask, then, "who cares?" since you get the movie. Many people would agree with you, but I think that the demographics intersect such that those with DVD burners are also those that want the extra content. At that point, and with online discount houses, you may as well go ahead and buy the real thing. As the price of DVD burners drops (and more importantly, the media, which is still in the several dollar range in quantity) the impact will increase, but then again, that's why the manufacturers are pushing hard for blue laser technology. The DVD player has turned into a commodity (you can get a DVD/FM tuner/DD5.1 amp/speakers combo for < $150 these days) so the electronic manufacturers want a new stream of income.

RE: Yahoo! News - Disney to Begin Renting 'Self-Destructing' DVDs