'ISPs don't work for the RIAA' → Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing

Without a warrant? I guess the 4th amendment been repealed. Government always needs a warrant except in case of national security and even then they got 72 hours to go back and get one. So no government will need a warrant.

PATRIOT authorizes the use of "sneak and peek" search warrants in connection with any federal crime, including misdemeanors. A "sneak and peek" warrant authorizes law enforcement officers to enter private premises without the occupant's permission or knowledge and without informing the occupant that such a search was conducted.

»www.eff.org/patriot/why.php

Copyright infringement is not a federal crime.

Copyright as SRFireside pointed out is not federal crime plus it has to be for reason of national security and not just any federal crime

I'm sorry you feel that way. But unfortunately both of you are wrong. Obviously you've never READ the FBI warning at the beginning of any movie.

»sanfrancisco.fbi.gov/doj ··· 2606.htm

»209.85.165.104/search?q= ··· =2&gl=us

lmao fbi warning

Read copyright law. It's a civil offense. The NET act is what you're talking about and if you read the charges the big clincher was this was a conspiracy to distributing a work that was being prepared for commercial distribution. That's a LONG way off from file traders. Why do you think the RIAA is suing people?

Because they are the illegal distributors of such commercial works. That's why.

U.S. Copyright Law {Title 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq., Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2319} Federal law protects copyright owners from the unauthorized reproduction, adaptation, performance, display or distribution of copyright protected works.

Note the word FEDERAL in the second sentence.

It doe's however allow for "civil" remedies which are the most commonly pursued.

Just because it's a Federal law doesn't mean it's a criminal offense. There are civil laws in the Federal books too. Copyright law is federal law, however it deals with compensation of royalties and licenses.

So it's not a crime to reproduce, adapt, perform, display or distribute protected works, without the owners permission?

Just because a law is in the Federal Book doesn't mean that it must be followed through by Federal Agents directly, However it doesn't make it non-criminal if it is not.

ALL copyright violators that are caught go to a FEDERAL Prison, are Charged a FEDERAL offense, Pay a FEDERAL fine. The only thing civil or local is when the FEDERAL government possibly asks for assistance in apprehending & detaining these criminals until they are transferred in to FEDERAL custody.

A crime is a crime, Federal or otherwise.

Show me where in copyright law it says copyright infringement is a criminal offense and what kind of prison time is applicable. It's in there to be sure, but not for EVERY infringement violation. The sort of offenses you are pertaining to only apply to certain limited circumstances. The uploader next door will not ever do jail time. Neither will Jay Z for remaking Tiny Bubbles without permission. You have a van full of copied CD's you are selling without paying royalties? That's one instance where you might do the time.

Take a look for yourself.

»www.copyright.gov/title1 ··· html#501

I now understand how you got yourself lost. Let me see if I can clarify things for you a bit with one of my famous links: ( just use google for future references)

...The lowest penalty is conviction of a federal misdemeanor, with a prison sentence of up to one year and a fine of up to $5000.
courtesy : »209.85.165.104/search?q= ··· =1&gl=us

It's also not unheard of for persons to be imprisoned for up to TEN (10) years.

Before you ask "Why don't we hear about these in the news". Consider the Patriot Act. Most uploaders are issued gag-orders, and it is against the law for news agencies to comment about such cases, period.

I think my point is further proven here.

Finally. end.

Lets try this again. Read the remedies in copyright law. The ONLY time copyright infringement is a criminal offense is if the total retail value of the infringed work exceeds $1000 over a six months period or if fraudulent copyright claims are made. All other remedies amount to things like cease and desist orders, injunctions, royalty repayment and statutory damages. You know... civil remedies. It's all there on the link you provided.

You don't hear much about file traders doing jail time because it hasn't happened. Don't you think the RIAA would love to show a criminal conviction for uploading music? That would be their golden goose in their war. The gag order more likely come from settlements and cases where the RIAA had to drop the case.

So I say again. Copyright infringement in of itself is not a criminal offense. It is primarily a civil offense, even if it is a federal law. Infringement that proves significant monetary damages can be criminally charged if it meets the required guidelines, but the exception doesn't make the rule. You haven't disproven my point. Just further solidified it.

Where would the money be, however? The **AAs have no intention to actually punish anyone with these methods. They're just hoping that people will be intimidated, and cough up the $1k (or about) settlement money to save their ass from a court date.