House bill calls for up to 3 years in prison for illegally distributing unreleased movies, songs


BY RICHARD J. DALTON JR
STAFF WRITER

April 21, 2005

It won't win an Oscar, but it may be Hollywood's favorite title of the year: The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act.

The bill, passed on Tuesday by the House, proposes up to 3 years in prison for anyone who electronically distributes a movie that hasn't been released on video or DVD, or songs or software that haven't been released to the public.

Experts said the bill focuses on expanding the types of activities covered under copyright law rather than increasing the penalties. Current law provides for up to 5 years and up to $250,000 in fines for copyright infringement.

The bill, which awaits the president's signature, also calls for up to 3 years' imprisonment for anyone who illegally distributes a copyrighted work for profit, distributes pirated material worth more than $1,000 or videotapes movies in theaters. Subsequent offenses carry up to 10 years in prison for copyright infringement of pre-release movies for financial gain.

That means someone who has a movie on his or her computer that can be shared via a file-sharing software could face up to 3 years in prison, said Fred von Lohmann, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based organization supporting civil rights online. "It seems to me that that's not likely to be the first priority, but it is theoretically possible," he said.

Scott Christie, a former federal prosecutor who handled copyright cases, said criminalizing the videotaping of movies is necessary as the quality of camcorders improves the quality of such movies. "Nowadays, people who engage in that conduct can produce a fairly good quality copy which they can then upload to the Internet and allow thousands or hundreds of thousands of people to download," he said.

"I'm very troubled by that because I'm concerned about the abuses it could lead to," said Jonathan Ezor, a professor at Touro Law Center in Huntington Station, noting that untrained movie theater employees could detain people.

Current law provides for up to 5 years and up to $250,000 in fines for copyright infringement.

The Motion Picture Association of America claims the law is necessary to reduce the $3.5 billion a year in piracy by traditional means - illegal copying and distributing videotapes and DVDs - and the undetermined losses of piracy online.

John Feehery, spokesman for the association, said 90 percent of piracy originates from camcorders. He said the penalties proposed in the bill are appropriate. "Many of these people who do this type of activity are involved in criminal gangs. This is the new crack. They get a bigger profit margin - some of these gangs - from distributing stolen DVDs than they would from drugs. A lot of these gangs are diversifying into this business."

Bob Barnes, 52, a Fresno, Calif., bus driver whose name and address were subpoenaed two years ago by the Recording Industry Association of America during one of its crackdowns against users of Kazaa, said he agreed that the industry needs to end piracy, but said it could be going to far.

"We're talking about theft, and we're talking about theft of new material," he said, but he added, "The penalties are steep."
Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know of a girl in town who's being sued for $30,000 for distributing over 10,000 songs on her computer. She had been warned twice to cease, she continued and they began proceedings against her. She's shitting her pants now cause legal fee's are mounting quickly.

How does it work if the distributer is foriegn?

Take that and like it.

This makes me very happy.

i couldnt agree with you more, it amazes me that people knowingly break the law, then say what a good person they are and dont deserve the punishment

While I agree this is wrong don't you guys think this is a little extreme, shouldn't the punishment fit the crime?

For actually selling the material I think it is about right. Like any other crime there are degrees. If you sold ten copies of Sin City to people at school you would probably get a slap on the wrist, if you are running a small warehouse of bootleg movies then you may get a year in prison. It will probably just mean hefty fines and probation for people who only distribute over the internet. This is probably more aimed at the big time distributors and not the local college student.

You are correct, sir.

she should be shitting her pants, as well as pissing in them and throwing up....10000 songs, and potentially being fined 30K for each song, + legal fees....wow



i couldnt find anything exactly relating towards foreigners and copyright protection/enforcement, but i have seen and read about several cases where they (US authorities) have gone to China/Tawain or wherever and busted up bootleg operations, though im not sure what the fines are for that/jail time

I'm all about pirating music, but I highly doubt I'd be so cavalier after receiving a cease and desist letter at my home. Is this girl stupid or bent on being a martyr?

shes a fucking tard, who knowingly breaks the law, is warned fucking twice....twice...and is now worried about shit....fucking idiot

good.

"Many of these people who do this type of activity are involved in criminal gangs. This is the new crack. They get a bigger profit margin - some of these gangs - from distributing stolen DVDs than they would from drugs. A lot of these gangs are diversifying into this business."


Yeah, lets not go crazy John. "the new crack?"

it's not like these guys are setting up tripods in theatres, it's a hack pathetic copy at best. The purchasing of those types of movies will never be that widespread. Sure prosecute them put them in prison, but geez, be less dramatic.

They're not? Go to a movie theatre in the Bronx on opening weekend and tell me what you see.

Besides, people obviously bring tripods into concerts undetected, it's even easier in a dark movie theater with no security at the door.

They really bring tripods? That's awesome! I always thought they just slipped it in on their laps a la Seinfeld.

Also, keep in mind, a lot of these bootleg copies are done by theatre employees. Making $6 an hour is not a great deterrent for theft- so these people are able to either do a direct trasfer to their lap top from the master film, or able to set up the camera as perfectly as possible.

Thats doesnt even factor in the people that touch the film each step along the way, who have access to them, and the odds are, if you have 200 people with access, someone is going to try and profit from it.

Well, no offence to you, but this chick is an idiot and deserves to be pissing her pants. She was doing something wrong, got caught, warned TWICE - and kept doing it. DUH. What did she expect? Daisies and rainbows?

That's the punishment for less than 100 individual songs.

So... Just B, do you realize how hypocritical you appear on the 2 threads about "art" property on this page?

which is it?

It is property that people can do with what the please, including sharing and altering?

or is it the property of the artist and the owner, and that should be respected?

I don't see that at all.

How about music that's been released should be free to share (SANS profit!)
But not free to alter and then re-sell for your own profit without the party's permission. HOW is he behing a hypocrite again???

Whether that check was selling or just sharing - the point is that she was asked to stop twice and didn't, therefore she's an idiot.

No question that person is an idiot...


And How is sharing NOT stealing? Pre or post release- it doesnt matter. Its all someone else's property for free. Someone else's art shouldnt be yours to keep for free- unless thats what THEY want.