No Electronic Theft Act Of 1997 Essay
Week 4
Assignment 2: Computer Laws
No Electronic Theft Act of 1997
Assignment 2: Computer Laws
No Electronic Theft Act of 1997
Today, there are many laws that address different acts of computer crimes. It is very important to understand what laws are applicable in a given situation. The law I have selected is the “no electronic theft act of 1997.” The no electronic theft act is also known as the net act, it came into law under presidents Clinton in 1997. This was used to protect against copyright violations on the Internet. The law makes it a federal crime to reproduce, distribute, or share copies of electronic copyrighted work. As such it is a crime to distribute copyrighted material even if it is done without financial gain. The law also requires that the commission of the crime be willful and that the total value of the copyrighted material exceeds $1000. There also is a five-year statute of limitations, meaning that the crime must be charged and prosecuted within five years of his commission. The net act also makes it a federal crime to record live performances without permission and further distribute the recordings.
The no electronic theft act of 1997 impacts society in the United States and the global environment in several ways. First and foremost the law is not clearly understood by many people. Its provisions are …show more content…
loosely interpreted which has led to confusion and misunderstandings. The most common misunderstanding about the no electronic theft act of 1997 is that many people believe any copy of any media is an illegal act. The failure in this understanding of the law is common and has blurred lines between what may be lawful and illegal. These types of laws have varying effects among people. For some, these laws work as a good avoidance mechanism, deterring them from web-based media in its entirety. People who failed to clearly understand the law in this case are too scared to make any attempt to violate the no electronic theft act of 1997. On the opposite end of the spectrum individuals who loosely interpret the law feel free to stream and download whatever content they wish so long as it becomes available.
The key take away from the no electronic theft act of 1997 is the ability to make the distinction of what qualifies as a crime. The law specifically states that one must reproduce, distribute, or share copyrighted material in excess of $1000 of the retail value of the material within the five-year statute of limitations. Based upon my interpretation this allows for at least 49 movies or 99 CDs to be reproduced, distributed, or shared within a five-year period if the value of each item was to be equal to or less than $20 or $10 respectively. These nuances make the no electronic theft act of 1997 difficult to enforce for most violators unless they are in violation well beyond the minimum requirement of the law.
Since the Acts enactment there have been many publicized prosecutions. In August 1999, Jeffrey Levy, a 22-year-old college student, was the first individual convicted under the act. He operated a Web site that allowed third parties to download thousands of software programs, games, songs and movies. Levy pleaded guilty to distributing copyrighted works of at least $5,000 and was sentenced to two years of probation with conditions.
Eric Thornton, a 24-year-old Navy technician, operated a Web site that offered infringing software to attract users to the site. At least one user downloaded 20 software programs with a retail value of $9,638. In December 1999, Thornton pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor violation. He received five years of probation, paid $9,600 restitution, forfeited his computer and had to stay off computers for 12 months except for business or educational purposes. Thornton also posted a notice on his Web site for 18 months describing his arrest and conviction.
In October 2000, 21-year-old Brian Baltutat pleaded guilty to violating the Act. He operated a Web site, visited by 65,000 people that offered 142 software programs for downloading by third parties. He was sentenced to three years ' probation, 180 days ' home confinement, restitution, 40 hours of community service and restrictions on using the Internet.
Based upon the cases listed above the law has had some success in convicting offenders of the no electronic theft act.
The results of these cases did not come close to meeting the penalties outlined in the law. The law calls for imprisonment up to three years for infringements with a total retail value of $2500 or more. Second offenses call for sentences not to exceed six years. For violations with a retail value less than $2500 and more than $1000 calls for imprisonment not to exceed one year or find in the amounts set forth. Through my research I was unable to locate any cases which actually resulted in
imprisonment.
I’m unable to determine any necessary change or ratification of the law. Rather I would recommend better publicity and clarification of what the law calls for. I feel that many of the individuals outlined in these cases would have been discouraged from committing the act they committed if they had better understood the provisions of the law. As I said previously it is hard to separate fact from fiction in what is understood about these laws. I feel that the source of any challenges that the prosecution may have faced in the trial came from the rarity and uniqueness of these cases. I feel that future cases will have better opportunity to prosecute these types of cases. Technology is challenging in that he must know the nuances of the technology to be able to prosecute or defend against accusations of computer-based criminal activity.
References:
Chuck Easttom & Jeff Taylor (2011). Computer Crime, Investigation, and the Law: 1st Edition/2011. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning
No Electronic Theft (NET) Act, Pub. L. No. 105-147, 111 Stat. 2678 (1997), retrieved 01 May 2013 available at http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17-18red.htm.
Tech Law Journal; Source: Library of Congress; retrieved 01 May 2013, available at http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/eldritch/pl105-147.htm Unlawful Distribution of Software on the Internet (Nov. 23, 1999), retrieved 01 May 2013, available at http://www.cybercrime.gov/levy2rls.htm.
Assignment 2: Computer Laws
No Electronic Theft Act of 1997
Assignment 2: Computer Laws
No Electronic Theft Act of 1997
Today, there are many laws that address different acts of computer crimes. It is very important to understand what laws are applicable in a given situation. The law I have selected is the “no electronic theft act of 1997.” The no electronic theft act is also known as the net act, it came into law under presidents Clinton in 1997. This was used to protect against copyright violations on the Internet. The law makes it a federal crime to reproduce, distribute, or share copies of electronic copyrighted work. As such it is a crime to distribute copyrighted material even if it is done without financial gain. The law also requires that the commission of the crime be willful and that the total value of the copyrighted material exceeds $1000. There also is a five-year statute of limitations, meaning that the crime must be charged and prosecuted within five years of his commission. The net act also makes it a federal crime to record live performances without permission and further distribute the recordings.
The no electronic theft act of 1997 impacts society in the United States and the global environment in several ways. First and foremost the law is not clearly understood by many people. Its provisions are …show more content…
loosely interpreted which has led to confusion and misunderstandings. The most common misunderstanding about the no electronic theft act of 1997 is that many people believe any copy of any media is an illegal act. The failure in this understanding of the law is common and has blurred lines between what may be lawful and illegal. These types of laws have varying effects among people. For some, these laws work as a good avoidance mechanism, deterring them from web-based media in its entirety. People who failed to clearly understand the law in this case are too scared to make any attempt to violate the no electronic theft act of 1997. On the opposite end of the spectrum individuals who loosely interpret the law feel free to stream and download whatever content they wish so long as it becomes available.
The key take away from the no electronic theft act of 1997 is the ability to make the distinction of what qualifies as a crime. The law specifically states that one must reproduce, distribute, or share copyrighted material in excess of $1000 of the retail value of the material within the five-year statute of limitations. Based upon my interpretation this allows for at least 49 movies or 99 CDs to be reproduced, distributed, or shared within a five-year period if the value of each item was to be equal to or less than $20 or $10 respectively. These nuances make the no electronic theft act of 1997 difficult to enforce for most violators unless they are in violation well beyond the minimum requirement of the law.
Since the Acts enactment there have been many publicized prosecutions. In August 1999, Jeffrey Levy, a 22-year-old college student, was the first individual convicted under the act. He operated a Web site that allowed third parties to download thousands of software programs, games, songs and movies. Levy pleaded guilty to distributing copyrighted works of at least $5,000 and was sentenced to two years of probation with conditions.
Eric Thornton, a 24-year-old Navy technician, operated a Web site that offered infringing software to attract users to the site. At least one user downloaded 20 software programs with a retail value of $9,638. In December 1999, Thornton pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor violation. He received five years of probation, paid $9,600 restitution, forfeited his computer and had to stay off computers for 12 months except for business or educational purposes. Thornton also posted a notice on his Web site for 18 months describing his arrest and conviction.
In October 2000, 21-year-old Brian Baltutat pleaded guilty to violating the Act. He operated a Web site, visited by 65,000 people that offered 142 software programs for downloading by third parties. He was sentenced to three years ' probation, 180 days ' home confinement, restitution, 40 hours of community service and restrictions on using the Internet.
Based upon the cases listed above the law has had some success in convicting offenders of the no electronic theft act.
The results of these cases did not come close to meeting the penalties outlined in the law. The law calls for imprisonment up to three years for infringements with a total retail value of $2500 or more. Second offenses call for sentences not to exceed six years. For violations with a retail value less than $2500 and more than $1000 calls for imprisonment not to exceed one year or find in the amounts set forth. Through my research I was unable to locate any cases which actually resulted in
imprisonment.
I’m unable to determine any necessary change or ratification of the law. Rather I would recommend better publicity and clarification of what the law calls for. I feel that many of the individuals outlined in these cases would have been discouraged from committing the act they committed if they had better understood the provisions of the law. As I said previously it is hard to separate fact from fiction in what is understood about these laws. I feel that the source of any challenges that the prosecution may have faced in the trial came from the rarity and uniqueness of these cases. I feel that future cases will have better opportunity to prosecute these types of cases. Technology is challenging in that he must know the nuances of the technology to be able to prosecute or defend against accusations of computer-based criminal activity.
References:
Chuck Easttom & Jeff Taylor (2011). Computer Crime, Investigation, and the Law: 1st Edition/2011. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning
No Electronic Theft (NET) Act, Pub. L. No. 105-147, 111 Stat. 2678 (1997), retrieved 01 May 2013 available at http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17-18red.htm.
Tech Law Journal; Source: Library of Congress; retrieved 01 May 2013, available at http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/eldritch/pl105-147.htm Unlawful Distribution of Software on the Internet (Nov. 23, 1999), retrieved 01 May 2013, available at http://www.cybercrime.gov/levy2rls.htm.