For possession of phencyclidine PCP , the possible prison time increases to 20 years. However, convictions involving Flunitrazepam also called rohypnol or ruffies are punishable by up to 10 years in prison. A defendant convicted of a second or subsequent offense faces twice the applicable fine, prison term, or both, as described above, according to the schedule and substance involved in the violation.
Possession of CDS on or within 2, feet of properties designated "drug-free zones" increases the maximum penalties both fines and imprisonment by one and one-half times. Drug-free zones include schools, public playgrounds, public parks and recreational facilities, daycares, universities, colleges, and drug treatment facilities. Being convicted of CDS possession crime might not seem like a big deal. But a conviction means not only possible jail or prison time but also a criminal record.
Criminal records have a tendency to follow you everywhere—job searches, housing applications, and professional licensing renewals, just to name a few. A local lawyer who practices CDS defense will review the facts of your case, explain your options, and advise you of the possible consequences. But clearly billions of unlawful copies have had a significant negative economic impact on the United States. In October , the Institute for Policy Innovation IPI , a non-profit public policy organization, released its first report on the overall effect of digital copyright violation on the U.
Using industry and government sources, the report made a conservative estimate of the economic harm caused by pirated sound recordings, movies, video games, and software. The IPI report revealed digital piracy on a global scale leads to major losses in U. The study also estimated the additional "cascading effect" on industry suppliers, retail distributors, and government tax revenue. Listed in the chart below are key findings from the IPI study.
Figures are based on research studies done between and Beyond the damage to the U. The ease of "rip, mix, and burn," say these observers, is resulting in a generation of young criminals who disregard the intellectual property of others.
The young file-sharing downloaders, however, do not see themselves as criminals. They believe they have the right to take music, movies, and other media off the Internet without paying for them.
Their justifications include:. Big media companies with huge investments in music, movies, television, and software turned to the federal government in the late s to strengthen copyright laws. The No Electronic Theft Act of makes it illegal to distribute unlawful copies of music CDs, films, DVDs and other copyrighted digital media even if no financial gain is involved.
Since , the limited time the law allowed for copyright protection gradually increased from the original maximum of 28 years.
If an individual author owns the copyright, it lasts for the author's lifetime plus 70 years following the author's death. In , in an attempt to catch up with fast-developing changes in technology, Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This wide-ranging law gave authority to owners of copyrighted digital media to sue those who illegally copied, distributed, or decoded encrypted products. This act also authorized copyright owners to compel Internet service providers to remove online material if the owners claim it infringes on their copyright.
In September just as school began , the Recording Industry Association of America RIAA , representing most of the music recording business, changed its strategy of attack.
The RIAA shifted from suing peer-to-peer file sharing web sites like Napster to going after individuals illegally copying and sharing copyrighted songs. Using this information, the RIAA has coordinated over 25, lawsuits against individuals since The RIAA meant for its lawsuit campaign to frighten downloaders from grabbing copyrighted music off the Internet.
But a backlash occurred when news stories revealed lawsuits against young children and cases of mistaken identity. Some questioned the fairness and logic of suing music lovers who are, after all, the industry's prime customer target group. In , a civil jury found a young mother of two in violation of the copyright laws for sharing 24 songs over the KaZaA network. Even so, online piracy of music, movies, and other digital media persists on a massive scale in the United States and throughout the world.
Thus far, the music, movie, and software industries have used lawsuits as their main weapon against the not-for-profit peer-to-peer file sharing digital pirates. The U. Department of Justice has focused on investigating and prosecuting criminal black-market operations that duplicate and sell bootleg digital products. The Federal Bureau of Investigation cooperates with other U. The number of such criminal prosecutions, however, is still relatively small.
In much of the rest of the world where intellectual property is often not even recognized, over a third of all music recordings sold is pirated. Recently, the U. Keep going after the online pirates and the file-sharing networks that enable them.
Suing end users of peer-to-peer file-sharing networks is the current strategy of the big media companies. They manage to sue only a small fraction of these downloaders of copyrighted music and other media. But the publicity may make others think twice before taking a chance that they may end up having to pay thousands of dollars for "free" music and movies.
To me, receiving something in the mail that I didn't specifically order or ask for is a Gift. I will do with that Gift whatever I choose to do. PaulT profile , 29 Jan pm. I used to shop at independent record stores, and can't count the number of "promo" cds, vinyls, etc.
At the time, it was great because they were cheap and allowed the record store to recoup some costs while introducing customers to new artists. Later on, they were great for me because I could resell the promos I'd bought that I no longer wanted on eBay, et al.
So, win-win situation, right? The label get their advertising, the store get a higher profit margin and the consumer gets a resellable item that encourages them to try out new artists. But, of course, the record industry is too dumb to realise this. If the don't have control over the final item, they're not interested, even if they lose out and kill retail channels in the process Promotions shouldnt be resold because the cd is being given to listen or "try out" as you will If nabisco hands out free samples of cookies, you're not allowed to resell them.
Same concept with CDs. What are you talking about? Of course you could resell the sample cookie. You'd have to find a complete sucker to buy it, but there is nothing legally stopping you. Robert , 30 Jan am. This Troy Augusto is so sleazy. He has a Willie Nelson cd that we are releasing for sale and it's not even out yet.
He should be in jail. Smart Chick , 30 Jan am. The end date on the auction is Feb. The same day the CD is released so technically he's not selling it before it's out. Why should he be in jail? You sent him the copy? Anonymous Coward , 30 Jan pm. Jerry Leichter , 1 Feb am. This whole dispute has absurdities both ways. There is no doubt that I can produce a CD and sell it to you, under a contract that we both knowingly sign, that prevents you from reselling the CD.
We could agree that you will only play the CD during nights when the moon is full. We could agree that you will only play the CD to people while trying to convince them that they, to, should buy a copy.
None of this implicates copyright; none of it implicates the First Sale Doctrine. I could sell you a car on the same basis. Should you violate our agreement and sell the CD anyway, say to a used CD store, I'm in violation of my contract and you can come after me. Whether the CD store is in any way bound my agreement is more complex. It's easy for them to say "well, we didn't enter into any agreement, we can do what we like".
Fine claim, but a fence will say exactly the same thing. Nevertheless, receiving stolen property is a crime. The question comes down to whether the alleged fence should reasonably have known that whoever sold him the stuff wasn't authorized to do so. In this case, the merchandise is clearly labeled "not for resale", so the store can't deny knowledge of the agreement. On the other hand, there was typically no contract between the record company and whoever receives the sample records - they send these things out en masse.
Also, it's been accepted practice in the industry for many years that these things get resold, and absent any kind of contract, one should certainly be entitled to rely on it. This can be true even if you copy and then give the CD away without a commercial purpose or receiving financial gain. The law creates an exception for "personal use," which means that burning copies is legal if the person plans to use the copies for their own personal use.
Practically speaking, this means that once you have bought an album, you can burn it in order to play on your portable music player, computer hard drive, etc. The law, however, does not allow someone to burn a CD and then pass the copy on to others.
Passing out burned copies of the CD to family and friends or otherwise giving away a copied CD is not considered "personal use" and would be in violation of federal law. The same general rules apply to other copyrighted materials like movies, video games, or software programs. Please submit column suggestions, questions, and comments to thecommonlaw austinchronicle.
0コメント