Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: AP: INTERNET COPYRIGH Message-ID: <9602110825.0BU0G00@support.com> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Sun, 11 Feb 96 08:25:25 -0800 Lines: 127 tomklem@netcom.com (Tom Klemesrud) Anonymous (nobody@REPLAY.COM) wrote: >: AP 7 Feb 96 > >: WASHINGTON (AP) -- People and companies that violate copyrights on >: the Internet should face criminal penalties, motion picture association >: head Jack Valenti told a congressional panel Wednesday. >: "These creative works are the jewels in America's trade crown," >: Valenti said. "If you cannot protect what you own, you don't own >: anything." > >[snip] > >: The three also agreed that the legislation should be passed quickly. >: Separately, Valenti and Preston rejected a proposal by Rep. Rick >: Boucher, D-Va., to exempt on-line service providers from copyright >: infringement liability and to delay passage of the bill until those >: providers and the producers of copyrighted materials agreed on the >: appropriate language. > >They are not talking about direct infringement here Dennis. Well, Tom. They must be. A criminal act is direct or conspiratorially (real word?) contributory. An knowing accessory. Classifying any thing as legally criminal demands that requirement. Doesn't it? Try to present to a criminal judge that an ISP is violating the law sufficient to allow a search and seizure of his accounts and hard disks. See how far you get without substantial prima facie evidence. Criminal judges will not cross the line into a man's home or business without considerable proof of criminal activity. They have been overturned too many times, I suppose. We certainly cannot let such copyright seizures remain in the hands of the complainant. That's vigilante justice. >Of course if >an ISP was a direct infringer, the could go after them. They are talking >about going after the ISP's without having to met the _knowledge_ >requirement that Judge Whyte has established. Then it obviously wouldn't be criminal, and could not proceed as a criminal action. Let the police hunt down digital criminals just like they do any thief or smuggler. >: The on-line service providers, Boucher said, cannot know what all the >: users of their services are doing and they should not be held liable for >: the actions of third parties. <<<<<<<<<< >: Ed Black, president of the Computer & Communications Industry >: Association, said the bill "may go too far towards advancing and >: protecting the interests of content providers ... at the expense of >: distributors and users." >: "If on-line service providers are strictly liable for the >: infringements of their subscribers, they will pass the cost of this >: liability onto the consumer in the form of higher access fees," Black >: said. > >This means Valenti wants a copyright law passed that would hold the >ISP liable no matter what--that the phone-company ISP's would be liable for >everything said on the phones, even if they didn't know a breach of law >was happening. Why? To get the ISP's to do their policeman work for them. If citizens are afraid to submit to court-directed, police authority (which they undoubtedly are) this is a huge vote of no-confidence. It probably even diminishs the soveriegnty of those using this fear to govern. Is it another defination of tyranny? It's certainly going to trickle down on each of us, eventually. >: But Preston said that if the services were exempted from liability, >: "copyright owners' recourse will be severely limited to pursuit of >: individual network users whose identities are typically known only to >: the services to which they subscribe." > >: Preston and Valenti also rejected Boucher's offer to write into the >: bill the conclusions of the few courts that have handled such cases. >: Those courts have cleared on-line service providers of liability because >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >: they either were not actively involved in the copyright infringement or > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >: they did not know it was occurring. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I'm sorry. You're right. And I know that "freindly" legislation is bought all the time by the Big Boys like Valenti. >Dennis, it did say this: The hollywood glamour boys are trying to >get rid of the _knowledge_ requirement for contributory copyright >infringement. That _is_ what this article is _all_ about. Duh-ur. Now I geddit! >The >hollywood-types are specifically complaining about Judge Whyte's ruling >in favor of Support.com and Netcom--that the ISP and BBS's cannot be >held liable without the _Knowledge_ test. Valenti wants to be able to >sue and raid, or otherwise get turned over to them all user information >on their mere suspicion--in order to bring the ISP to their knees on an >allegation--just like the Scientologists. The reason: Valenti wants the >ISP's and BBS's to do their policing for them. Of course, this would >also ruin the internet, and have a collateral benefit for big monied >Hollywood. Small companies could not survive such a law. Valenti's >groups could then take charge as one of the "Big Three" controlling all >information on a world-wide basis. These cretins want to totally >eliminate fair use, as henri has said. It is not pretty. Ever wonder >why Scientology is--as "Hard Copy" described it--"the religion of the >stars?" . Yup. The scienos are jowl to ckeeks with the H-wood Hype Machine. >Remember the Scieno who said, "We control Hollywood"? It is by-and-large >true, perhaps. > Tom Klemesrud SP5 > KoX Yea, Tom. But I own Glendale, all the rest of the San Fernando Valley, and everything east of there. Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *