• On MovieTome: Leaked images from TRANSFORMERS 2?

April 27, 2005 3:44 PM PDT

New law cracks down on P2P pirates

File-swappers who distribute a single copy of a prerelease movie on the Internet can be imprisoned for up to three years, according to a bill that President Bush signed into law on Wednesday.

The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act, approved by the House of Representatives last Tuesday, represents the entertainment industry's latest attempt to thwart rampant piracy on file-swapping networks. Movies such as "Star Wars: Episode II," "Tomb Raider" and "The Hulk," have been spotted online before their theatrical releases.

The law had drawn some controversy because it broadly says that anyone who has even one copy of an unreleased film, software program or music file in a shared folder could be subjected to prison terms and fines of up to three years. Penalties would apply regardless of whether that file was downloaded or not.

In a statement, Motion Picture Association of America president Dan Glickman said he wanted to "thank the congressional sponsors of this legislation for their strong advocacy for intellectual property rights."

The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act also includes sections criminalizing the use of camcorders to record a movie in a theater, and authorizing the use of technologies that can delete offensive content from a film.

"The protection of intellectual property rights is vital to the movie industry," said Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican who joined Bush for the signing ceremony. "This bill is necessary to ensure that all those involved in the production of a film, from the director to the set carpenter, are not cheated."

The law's stiff penalties apply to "audiovisual" works, music and software that are "being prepared for commercial distribution." It's not clear how that would apply to fans who redistribute video files of TV shows aired in other countries first, or movies like Shaolin Soccer and Japanese anime flicks that can take years to arrive in the U.S. market.

While some public interest groups have criticized the measure, others characterized it as a modest expansion to a 1997 law that made copyright infringement a crime--even when no money changed hands.

Eric Goldman, who teaches copyright law at Marquette University Law School, said that the Justice Department will likely wield its new criminal enforcement powers responsibly. "I'm not as outraged by the (new law) as I expected to be," Goldman wrote last week.

See more CNET content tagged:
intellectual property right, law, piracy, film, copy

Add a Comment (Log in or register) 72 comments (Showing first 20 comments)
Those with money get the Governments Favored Hand
by April 27, 2005 4:29 PM PDT
No surprise here, frankly, There should be a law signed that prevents Movie studios from raping the customer to see a movie, average cost for a family of 4 is $30 + Food....INSANE!! What about that? The stars make TONS of money....its always the AVG joe that has to pay!!
Reply to this comment View all 3 replies
Those with money get the Governments Favored Hand
by April 27, 2005 4:29 PM PDT
No surprise here, frankly, There should be a law signed that prevents Movie studios from raping the customer to see a movie, average cost for a family of 4 is $30 + Food....INSANE!! What about that? The stars make TONS of money....its always the AVG joe that has to pay!!
Reply to this comment View all 3 replies
What about less than a single copy?
by hadaso April 27, 2005 4:35 PM PDT
What if a file sharer has less than a whole movie (but the movie can still be downloaded in parts from several places?) In fact it is possible that two people have no part of the movie, but togrther have the whole movie (xor the file with a random string of bits. The result is also a random string of bits. Each person holds one random string of bits, that in fact contains absolutely no information about the contents of the file. xor the two parts and you got the whole file. This is how 0+0 can be 1). Can the law cope with this situation?
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
What about less than a single copy?
by hadaso April 27, 2005 4:35 PM PDT
What if a file sharer has less than a whole movie (but the movie can still be downloaded in parts from several places?) In fact it is possible that two people have no part of the movie, but togrther have the whole movie (xor the file with a random string of bits. The result is also a random string of bits. Each person holds one random string of bits, that in fact contains absolutely no information about the contents of the file. xor the two parts and you got the whole file. This is how 0+0 can be 1). Can the law cope with this situation?
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
Unreleased Works Only? Is that correct?
by April 27, 2005 5:00 PM PDT
I'm confused about this. Your article seems to imply that this law pertains to "unreleased movies, music, and software." Is that the case? If so, then it would seem to me to be targeting internal "leaks" of new works.

Cnet, can you clarify what this law really means? Because I would assume that if I am the copyright holder, and I release one of my songs to a P2P network, no laws have been violated. Correct?
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
Unreleased Works Only? Is that correct?
by April 27, 2005 5:00 PM PDT
I'm confused about this. Your article seems to imply that this law pertains to "unreleased movies, music, and software." Is that the case? If so, then it would seem to me to be targeting internal "leaks" of new works.

Cnet, can you clarify what this law really means? Because I would assume that if I am the copyright holder, and I release one of my songs to a P2P network, no laws have been violated. Correct?
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
:]
by April 27, 2005 6:27 PM PDT
its called capitalism
Reply to this comment View reply
:]
by April 27, 2005 6:27 PM PDT
its called capitalism
Reply to this comment View reply
End of Days
by System Tyrant April 27, 2005 8:31 PM PDT
I just liked the title.

I don't think the government is stupid, but I don't thinks it's smart either. Polotitians don't know everything about everything. They do what ever they are told to do. Who has the power? People with the loudest voices. And guess who can afford the biggest bull horn. Bush or his cabinet never spent anytime researching the effect of this law. They sign it in and the courts throw it out. Unfortunatly many citizens will suffer in the mean time.

Look at two laws that are stupid. Patriot Act and the DMCA. I'm not going to argue that the concept for both was bad just the implamentation. It is a fine gray line between what is constitutional and what they can change. We all have the power to make the change, but only if enough of us stand together (yeah I know 'how 60's of me). If you don't like the way theaters charge don't go. If you don't like the way music is sold don't buy it. It's not easy and it won't be one in a day, but some point the market will crash or change will happen.
Reply to this comment
End of Days
by System Tyrant April 27, 2005 8:31 PM PDT
I just liked the title.

I don't think the government is stupid, but I don't thinks it's smart either. Polotitians don't know everything about everything. They do what ever they are told to do. Who has the power? People with the loudest voices. And guess who can afford the biggest bull horn. Bush or his cabinet never spent anytime researching the effect of this law. They sign it in and the courts throw it out. Unfortunatly many citizens will suffer in the mean time.

Look at two laws that are stupid. Patriot Act and the DMCA. I'm not going to argue that the concept for both was bad just the implamentation. It is a fine gray line between what is constitutional and what they can change. We all have the power to make the change, but only if enough of us stand together (yeah I know 'how 60's of me). If you don't like the way theaters charge don't go. If you don't like the way music is sold don't buy it. It's not easy and it won't be one in a day, but some point the market will crash or change will happen.
Reply to this comment
More Jobs Outsourced To China, Russia
by Stating April 27, 2005 11:54 PM PDT
Darn it, this new law is going to cause the loss of thousands of American video pirate jobs. These jobs will now be outsourced to China, Russia, and other developing countries. Something MUST be done to bring these jobs back here. Per the MPAA's website:

"Russia is now one of the world?s largest producers and distributors of illegal optical media material. Local DVD plants have an annual production capacity of over 20 million DVDs (over 10 times the level of legitimate local demand). The Russian market has now become so saturated with pirate DVDs that the pirates have resorted to selling them on the streets by the kilogram.

China struggles with chronic piracy, which is estimated to comprise 91% of its total home entertainment market. Some of the factors that fuel the piracy epidemic include the lack of deterrence in the system; the uncoordinated
enforcement activities throughout China; the lack of transparency; and the continued local protectionism."

Where's Jack Valente when you really need him?
Reply to this comment
More Jobs Outsourced To China, Russia
by Stating April 27, 2005 11:54 PM PDT
Darn it, this new law is going to cause the loss of thousands of American video pirate jobs. These jobs will now be outsourced to China, Russia, and other developing countries. Something MUST be done to bring these jobs back here. Per the MPAA's website:

"Russia is now one of the world?s largest producers and distributors of illegal optical media material. Local DVD plants have an annual production capacity of over 20 million DVDs (over 10 times the level of legitimate local demand). The Russian market has now become so saturated with pirate DVDs that the pirates have resorted to selling them on the streets by the kilogram.

China struggles with chronic piracy, which is estimated to comprise 91% of its total home entertainment market. Some of the factors that fuel the piracy epidemic include the lack of deterrence in the system; the uncoordinated
enforcement activities throughout China; the lack of transparency; and the continued local protectionism."

Where's Jack Valente when you really need him?
Reply to this comment
Good Morning.
by Willy Wonker April 28, 2005 4:03 AM PDT
Be a hero by making it veto!
Reply to this comment
Good Morning.
by Willy Wonker April 28, 2005 4:03 AM PDT
Be a hero by making it veto!
Reply to this comment
Not so bad...
by skeptik April 28, 2005 6:26 AM PDT
Come on people. Get real.
I'm a pirate. By the industry's current view, I've been a pirate for about 25 years... since I first started taping songs off the radio by playing my clock radio and taping over the air with my (mono!) cassette recorder's condensor mic.
I think collecting audio and video I'm exposed to is a right, not a crime. And I'm the first to say that most online swapping is not lost revenue...
But posting and swapping of content which has not even been released yet... what justification can you make for this? Nobody, not even the industry insiders, have come by this material with the right to share it by any legal means. And no argument can be made that it doesn't hurt the industry. Likewise for taping movies in the theatre (a closed, private airing of content).
As for the recording and sharing of material broadcast on TV... I can't see any argument for something which was broadcast publicly and for free being considered "stolen". And hopefully this bill will not be construed as making that a crime. I'd hate to go to jail for taping a TV show for my mom while she was sick!
In all I think this law has a lot of benefit for the public, and very little infringement on our rights. Don't overlook that this same law validates the technology to permit the censoring of content by individuals in their own home... which the industry also wanted outlawed.
Reply to this comment
Not so bad...
by skeptik April 28, 2005 6:26 AM PDT
Come on people. Get real.
I'm a pirate. By the industry's current view, I've been a pirate for about 25 years... since I first started taping songs off the radio by playing my clock radio and taping over the air with my (mono!) cassette recorder's condensor mic.
I think collecting audio and video I'm exposed to is a right, not a crime. And I'm the first to say that most online swapping is not lost revenue...
But posting and swapping of content which has not even been released yet... what justification can you make for this? Nobody, not even the industry insiders, have come by this material with the right to share it by any legal means. And no argument can be made that it doesn't hurt the industry. Likewise for taping movies in the theatre (a closed, private airing of content).
As for the recording and sharing of material broadcast on TV... I can't see any argument for something which was broadcast publicly and for free being considered "stolen". And hopefully this bill will not be construed as making that a crime. I'd hate to go to jail for taping a TV show for my mom while she was sick!
In all I think this law has a lot of benefit for the public, and very little infringement on our rights. Don't overlook that this same law validates the technology to permit the censoring of content by individuals in their own home... which the industry also wanted outlawed.
Reply to this comment
I have to agree with this law...
by Michael Grogan April 28, 2005 10:59 AM PDT
...it only affects pre-release piracy; and that is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, theft and has the potential to rob the industry of even legit profit. The fact that they're greedy bastards who overcharge for everything is a seperate issue altogether.
Reply to this comment
I have to agree with this law...
by Michael Grogan April 28, 2005 10:59 AM PDT
...it only affects pre-release piracy; and that is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, theft and has the potential to rob the industry of even legit profit. The fact that they're greedy bastards who overcharge for everything is a seperate issue altogether.
Reply to this comment
Innapropiately named
by Sentinel April 28, 2005 1:02 PM PDT
I think they chose the wrong name for this law. "Family Entertainment and Copyright Act" makes the law seem friendly and positive, when it is completely the opposite. Maybe it should've been named "Copyright Infringement People Imprisonment Act".

It seems they've learned nothing. How many lawsuits or how many courtrooms before they realize that people will keep on swapping? I don't do file sharing myself, but those who do do it, will probably keep at it.
Reply to this comment View reply
Innapropiately named
by Sentinel April 28, 2005 1:02 PM PDT
I think they chose the wrong name for this law. "Family Entertainment and Copyright Act" makes the law seem friendly and positive, when it is completely the opposite. Maybe it should've been named "Copyright Infringement People Imprisonment Act".

It seems they've learned nothing. How many lawsuits or how many courtrooms before they realize that people will keep on swapping? I don't do file sharing myself, but those who do do it, will probably keep at it.
Reply to this comment View reply
 See all 72 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement

Latest tech news headlines

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.

More feeds available in our RSS feed index.

advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right