Slashdot Mirror
Meet the DoJ's 'Anti-Piracy' Lawyers
Answering your questions will be the attorneys assigned to prosecute intellectual property crimes in the Department of Justice's Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS). Spearheading this group will be Michael O'Leary, Deputy Chief for Intellectual Property who oversees the day-to-day intellectual property enforcement operations. Here is some background on CCIPS and their intellectual property efforts:CCIPS began as a small group within DOJ in 1991, with a focus on network crimes (e.g. hacking into machines, destructive worms and viruses, denial of service attacks), intellectual property crimes (e.g. software piracy and counterfeiting), and electronic evidence issues. CCIPS is part of the Criminal Division of DOJ (which, as its name suggests, is primarily responsible for enforcement of federal criminal laws). Today, the section has grown to almost 40 lawyers, of whom about a dozen focus on IP issues. (Please keep in mind that it will be the IP prosecutors answering questions here, so save your non-IP-related hacking or electronic evidence issues for another time.)
What do the attorneys assigned to IP at CCIPS do? The IP prosecutors in the Section are responsible for establishing and enforcing the Department's overall intellectual property rights enforcement program, including the prosecution of federal intellectual property crimes. In some instances, CCIPS handles the prosecution of intellectual property cases. More frequently they work closely with prosecutors in the U.S. Attorneys' Offices around the country who handle the vast majority of federal criminal prosecutions, both IP and non-IP. They also provide training on IP issues for prosecutors and law enforcement, both domestically and internationally. Other responsibilities include reviewing new policy proposals, legislation, or international agreements related to IP, and providing advice to other government agencies or components of DOJ. The prosecutors also work closely with foreign law enforcement counterparts to coordinate IP enforcement activities around the globe.
While they are committed to fully answering your questions, as Department of Justice attorneys, they are subject to various Federal laws, Department of Justice rules, and ethics rules. They are not permitted to provide legal advice to individual private citizens. This means that there is no attorney-client relationship between CCIPS and Slashdot readers, users, or moderators (and answering questions on Slashdot should not be interpreted as creating one). Therefore, they will not answer questions seeking legal advice. Finally, they cannot discuss ongoing cases, investigations or related hypotheticals.
To learn more about the Department of Justice or the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, visit the following web sites, www.usdoj.gov and www.cybercrime.gov.
When it comes to the scale of illicit software trading in the US, is there a sense of how much is coming from outside the country as opposed to purely domestic activity? I would think that stemming the international traffic would be much more difficult due to varying legal climates in different countries.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
by "justice dept attorneys" it generally means they're federal prosecutors, like david boise in the microsoft case.
Finally, they cannot discuss ongoing cases, investigations or related hypotheticals.
While this may mean no "let's-get-'em" questions, I look forward to seeing what happens. This will be a chance to actually hear good questions and good answers, as opposed to questions that are really statements and answers that are "no comments".
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
Finally, they cannot discuss ongoing cases, investigations or related hypotheticals.
What do they mean by "related hypotheticals"?
If they mean "implications of the new laws", then it makes the whole interview slightly pointless...
The ENIAC Demo Competition
What is your definition of the term "Fair Use" in regard to any software or music we buy?
"Some fight for law. Some fight for justice. What will you fight for? One day, you will see."
Who owns the IP on their answers and are we allowed to distribute then on Kazaa if they do?
Omnis amans amens
I am aware that companies spend large sums of money on holograms, authenticity cards, product activation schemes, anti-CD-copying schemes, serial numbers and so on. When investigating alleged copyright infringement, do you find that these anti-IP-infringement techniques have a real effect on preventing such things from happenning? Does copyright infringement go down when companies put up roadblocks like these or do the infringers get away with it nontheless?
Can you summarize the public good performed by your efforts that a taxpayer, who is neither a stockholder nor employee of the content industry, can realize and should support as a necessary function of the federal government?
Question I usually like to see answered by anyone:
What is the one thing that people usually don't understand about you or what you do that you wish they did?
Do you ever take up a case where you disagree with the cause?
Ok, I guess my question would be this: with the ability for everything to be digitized, we are experiencing a revolution or a renaissance of information in which all information can be shared. With this Pandora's Box opened, is it truly possible to keep information from being shared or do they believe that they are fighting a losing battle? In other words, Is this going to be another 'war on drugs' in which money is pumped into a battle that can never be won or do they honestly believe that legislation will be passed that can be easily enforced upon the masses at large?
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
In fairness, the article does qualify it as 'software piracy' and doesn't use that term often. Why do they continue to refer to the internet protocol (IP) though? They continue to get their terms muddled!
By the way, I do think that 'software murder', 'software rape' and 'software pillaging' are very naughty things to do.
If we are unhappy with some related current legislation, what is the most effective means for us constituents to work on changing these laws? Is writing our congressmen the only/most effective way or is there something else we can do to have our opinions heard?
I'm curious about the criminal definition of IP Theft and Infringement. It has always been my stance that such items, within reason, should be a matter settled in a civil suit. It is extremely difficult to deprive a party of intellectual property, unlike tangible property. With this in mind, I don't feel there is truly a need for an IP Theft/Infringmenet branch in the Department of Justice.
On to the actual question: Wouldn't the vast majority of cases be handled with the correlated "hacking" or other forms of breaking and entering to steal the property in question, without actually devoting the resources for what is largely a civil matter between individuals or companies? I'm guessing my stance on this comes from a misunderstanding as to what it takes for the government to actually get involved in IP theft/infringement.
Also, I understand that while some companies and individuals do not have the resources to fight IP theft/infringment in court, it seems programs could be setup to assist them. It still seems a large pool of legal resources for what should be a civil matter.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
if I copy a file how is this stealing? if I go to my neighbors house
with his permission and copy his furniture, then recreate it
like norm did on the old yankee workshop is that illegal to?
Do you see a distinction between (what I would consider) a true "pirate" -- one who copies and distributes, for profit, intellectual property -- versus a file sharer?
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
A lot of noise has been made (in the techie world, at least) about the desire of several copyright holders to enforce anti-piracy laws by taking matters into their own hands; music companies deleting music files off of privately-owned computers, movie studios doing the same thing with movie files, etc. For the moment, this sort of thing is not legal.
My question is: As a lawyer, how do you view bills that aim to legalize this sort of activity? When it comes to "making it legal", is there a connection between letting the RIAA perform 'hacks' that would be illegal for private citizens, and allowing pot to be smoked only by those who have a prescription, or only law-enforcement officers to obtain concealed weapon permits? Is there a danger of reaching a point where we go from "The movie studios can shut down your website if they think you're letting people download movies" to "If you think the neighbor stole your mailbox, you can break into his house to get it back"?
But do you? I.e., do you think that the laws as they exist are a) fair to consumers and b) in the spirit of the intent of Copyright Law as it was originally conceived? If not, what would you change?
Since you can answer any juicy questions, I wont bother to ask any.
So...errrr...oh yea....what are your favorite colors?
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
It should be "Hell hath to fury like a woman's scorn for SEGA"
Your welcome
What are their role involving enforcement of US laws on partiees outside the US as opose dto say the efforts of the BSA?
Don't Tread on OpenSource
I hear the term "Fair Use" bandied about all the time in these discussions. From a legal standpoint, does it exist? Do I have a right, that will stand up in a court of law, to make a copy of software/music/data for my own personal use?
If I do, does making an "uncopy-able" product violate that right?
There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
I'm trying to figure out at what point do you differentiate between "fair use" and "piracy". At what point does "fair use" stop and "piracy" begin? Would letting an immeadiate relative or direct friend make use of a software package be considerered "fair use"? Can you provide an example of what would be considered "fair use" that would contradict the licensing terms of an EULA?
We hear frequent mention in the press, that most internet crime happens from people outsied the US - Skylarov, the Pakistani who exposed the Passport flaw, open gateways from Asia pumping spam etc.
It is really astonishing to note that the most powerful nation with the best detectives and sleuths can be deterred for so long, by a few novices operating from abroad.
Question:
To control piracy, is it enough that the action taken is within the US, or a global consensus needs to be built up?
You have mentioned the word IP freuently - does it stand for copyright or patents?
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
It's easy to find cases where people get light sentences for crimes that, at least to me, seem much more damaging to society than a few swapped files. How do you justify asking for billions of dollars of so-called damages or years of jail time when people who shoplift some CDs receive little if any punishment?
Either you guys are way in over your heads to ask all of /., or you've got an army of lawyers sitting behind PCs (YIKES!).
Best. Webhost. Ever. Dreamhost.
I don't really have a good question to ask them, but I might suggest that they take a look at the dslreports thread referenced at this link. The guy(s) those people are investigating are actually trying to sell other people's software for profit, not to mention spamming people to do it, which is a good deal worse than those who share music at the cost of their own bandwidth.
Oh, I take it back, I do have a question:
How much effort is being spent these days on investigating old-fashioned for-profit organized-crime software piracy, like selling WinXP out-of-the-box at local computer shows, versus pursuing home computer users sharing files over peer-to-peer networks?
When talking about a P2P application, who is the one to blame for the piracy? The programmers of the P2P app, or the people who use the application for piracy?
"Some fight for law. Some fight for justice. What will you fight for? One day, you will see."
I there pressure from any source (industry, executive or legislative) to look for and execute prosecutions on 'high profile' situations that will bring in headlines or dramatic convictions?
Thanks and I hope you keep up 'the good fight' that is truly the good fight.
What does a job/career such as this pay? (Avg. Yearly)
Is this a Type of career that you are basically "married" to your job?
iF yOu WAnT to C YOUr iP agaIn gAThEr tWO MilLIon dOLLArS IN Non - cONsEcuTivE TweNtY's AnD AWaiT FuRThER iNstrUctIoN
Free the bits for all to see and use. Data is a pure public good as the costs of replication is neglible. The costs of production should be paid for by society through tax. Artists for example, should be paid by the government and the whole people who the government governs should have unlimited access to the data. Just an idea. Or you could just lower CD prices by say 500% to keep in line with market value. I suppose it is easier to prosecute consumers who don't feel like buying a CD only to find the record label has put on one good single and like 12 tracks of crap.
Here is a question I have been dying to ask for a long time, but never
got a chance until now for which I thank you and slashdot.
As we all know, laws cannot be defined like scientific formulas, but rather
have to evolve to suit the needs of the society and to adhere to the spirit
of what the founding fathers intended.
My question is this. When you persue, and prosecute intellectual property
cases (esp. related to music industry) what sort of guidelines do you use
here to differentiate between fair use of listeners and property rights of
conglomerates ? Do you follow all cases int he same way ? Are there
references made to the text by the founding fathers and their ideas regarding
balancing soceities need for creativity and owners(not necessarily creaters) need
for profits ? I would like to know what goes on in the closed rooms where decisions
need to be made regarding allocating tax-payers resources to persue cases where
it may not always be clear where the fair line needs to be drawn. Do you ever
get the feeling that not making a good judgement over long period can lead to civil
unrest in digital domain, as has happened before?
Are there times that you personally feel that enforcing a law to its word is unfair
but have to nevertheless enforce it to adhere to the letter ?
What do you think is the future of some of the current IP laws and future proposals
from a law enforcement perspective ? Do you forsee any major obstacles for enforcement of
some of the stricter digital rights laws that are on the table ?
Thanks again,
Too Bad.
DO NOT PANIC
I'm way too afraid to ask a question. I can almost feel them watching me...
In the eyes of the Justice Department what is/are the greatest threat(s) to IP in the US?
Friendly
do you have any special metrics or do you just use the claims presented by plaintiffs? if you have metrics of your own, how were they calculated?
...vividly encapsulates that post-Watergate/pre-punk/coked-up moment when you could trust no one, least of all yourself.
How does your Section handle Open Source/Free software licenses? for example how do you check if a FTP server is allowed to distribute software?
Can CCIPS prosecution of people who violate licenses of Open Source software?
Is there any sense as to the actual guidance of the cryptography export laws? As an American citizen living in the Netherlands, I've been faced with a lot of problems, especially in this area. For instance, I'm legally unable to get source code for projects such as Kerberos (although it's been possible "through other people." I don't get the feeling people take this very seriously, and was wondering what you guys thought.
How do you wish to punish cyber criminals coming from other countries? For instance, if a Dutch hacker cracks a US corporate server (ignoring US/Dutch relations for a bit), would it be possible to prosecute this person? Are there UN regulations for computer "terrorism" (as I'm sure Bush would have it called, ehehe :)
What are your perspective's of Microsoft's Palladium technology and it's legalitites?
How often do internet security cases get tried?
I'm sure I could go on with tons more, but I think this is probably enough.
Kind regards, Devon H. O'Dell
So...how much you taken home? After taxes and all?
Consensual sex is boring.
I know you're not allowed to provide legal advice, but can you clarify this one simple question that's been dragging on all our minds:
Is music piracy theft, or is it just analogous to theft? Or is it analogous to stealing buggy whips?
-a
Is a distinction made between different levels of IP infringement?
I imagine that, from a legal standpoint, there should be a different point of view between a student that copies one software for personal use and a blatant thief who makes money out of selling the same copied software.
However, this question has two assumptions:
- The student would not use the software if it was not available (i.e. it is not a lost sale)
- Both activities are infringing (i.e. this question is not seeking to justify the first case)
I think this question is especially relevant since there are reports that the RIAA is now prosecuting students for "infringements" that are mostly gray areas (i.e. the infringement does not seem proven beyond a reasonable doubt, at least to the public).
The ENIAC Demo Competition
What do you see as the governing reasons behind the intelectual property laws? And do you find any inconsistencies in reason or effect with the laws as written? Do you see any ways the laws might be changed to make them better? For example, would it make sense for lawmakers to better codify examples of fair use or is this best left in the hands of the courts?
How does the DOJ distinguish between IP disputes between parties, as opposed to cases in which they feel that the resources of the department would be well-spent investigating the matter?
There must be some kind of rule, or otherwise the DOJ would already have invested the offices of IBM and re-possessed all disputed copies of the alledgedly infringing AIX operating system.
Is the DOJ sure that these rules do not favour the larger corporate parties? Is the DOJ sure that their services are not misused in cases where ordinary contract dispute resolution methods or civil procedures would be more appropriate?
As Law and Technology are two fields with little in common, what kind of real-world working knowledge do IP lawyers have? Do they simply prosecute/defend cases based on what their told by a handful of "experts" or do they actually know how to use the technologies in question. Is there a call for more Engineers-turned-lawyer for cases such as this? I am about to finish my bachelor's in EE, and am thinking of law school. Thanks.
As a Canadian I am curious as to the co-operation you receive (if any) from agencies outside the US? Specifically Canada but also internationally in general.
mitd -- Made in the Dark
"One good thing about spam... You don't gotta answer it"
Given that from a legal standpoint (and, many would argue, an ethical one) there is a distinction between "copyright infringement"/IP violation and "theft", what views do you have on the regular and incorrect/misleading application of the latter term by such people as the RIAA and law enforcement? Such misuse of language seems disingenuous, and taints the arguments of those who might otherwise have valid points to make about the morality of misuse of intellectual property rights.
It seems that if there are ethical arguments against piracy and other forms of copyright misuse, those arguments can and should be made on their own merits without the introduction of psychological wordplay apparently designed to confuse the public and cloud the debate. Accordingly, what steps are being taken to clarify the correct terminology and to avoid jingoistic use of words like 'theft', 'thieves' and 'stealing' amongst law enforcement and elsewhere?
Why is the government so willing to bend over backwards to help copyright holders, yet it does seemingly little to protect individual fair use rights?
As it stands, if I were to break the copy-protection scheme on a CD to make a backup of it for personal use, I would be in breach of the DMCA, even if I had no intention of making an illegal copy of it. Piracy is already illegal, those who commit it are going to do it anyway - this law simply makes criminals of ordinary people.
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
Question centers mostly around entertainment content with intrinsic value (i.e., films or music).
How much time do you spend on pursuing (or facilitating the pursuit of) the individual who downloads a piece of IP outside of any approved distribution channel versus how much time you spend on people trading illegally in IP for gain (i.e., selling DVDs of a new release illegally taped at the point of theatrical release)?
Do you have a sense at what point in the value chain the leaks seem to be happening and where in your opinion should the focus of law enforcement be in stopping those leaks? Do you look more at the studio courier who has his hands at on the master copy for a few hours or do you look more at peer-to-peer systems? Do you see trends in your focus in one direction or another?
Thanks!
Because the snark was a...
Why is a government agency involved in recouping money for corporations? These cases seem more civil in nature, and the industries should be charged with the responsibility of providing evidence and seeking ligitation. In short, why do tax payer dollars go towards this.
It's apparant that there have been changes in the past several years regarding music and software piracy. P2P, CD Burners, DVD-Burners, and the growing wealth of information on the net has made it easier and easer.
As legal professionals, with experience dealing with these topics. What in your opinion would be your remedy, if you can just force it upon the country:
1. Remove all copyrights. Nobody can make profit off of software, writing, sound, information. Everything that is not limited to "can hold in your hand" is free.
2. Enforce all copyrights as much as possible, and prosecute indefinately. Going after everyone and anyone. Widening the laws to allow for easier law enforcement on the net (not necessarally to the extent of the Patriots Act).
3. Create laws limiting the price and monopoly companies can have over intelectual property. So that companies like Microsoft can't charge hundreds of dollars so bob can start his small businesses computer, and sally can listen to one song she likes from NSYNC. Prosecute companies who volate, and individuals/companies who don't comply. Everyone has the right to buy reasonably priced products. Everyone has the right to a profit. Nobody has the right to take advantage of another individual, regardless of status or side in the situation.
4. Something else?
IMHO 3 is my favorite. I think major reforms are needed on all sides. But I was wondering what someone in this whole mess thinks.
Sorry for the giant question. Wanted to make sure it's calculated, and clear as to what I was asking.
Do you feel that the RIAA/MPAA are infringing upon the perogatives of the true owners of the IP rights (the artists themselves) by going after end users of these materials? Should corporate entities like this be allowed the leeway to sue on behalf of their clients without their clients' consent? If so, do you think the ramifications of this (ability to exploit a contract with a client for personal gain, possibly against the will of the client) can bleed over in to other areas of the law?
IAALS.
Obviously, you have law degrees, but what other degrees or field expertise do you have (such as computer science backgrounds, library degrees, etc.)? Obviously, not everyone is going to understand every single patent out there, but do you handle cases exclusively by what's on paper, relying on the claims of industry experts, or do you provide your own understanding of at least some of the key fields?
----------
Something cleverWhat is the DOJ's position about damages companies claim for copyright infringement? Are they taken as-is, or does somebody verify claims?
For example, say Joan Filetrader has a Metallica MP3 in her shared directory and is eventually prosecuted for copyright violation. It seems like it is standard practice for Metallica's copyright holders to do math like "Well the connection was up for 1 month, and her bandwidth is 8Mb/s, that means that she could have transferred 2,500,000 MB that month, and since the MP3 is 5MB she cost us $10,000,000 in sales."
Does the DOJ review that math and do things like verify what the likely impact on the company's bottom line was?
What type of legal training do investigators have?
/ephraim
I'm asking this as a techie who is considering attending law school. What coursework has been helpful to your jobs? What types of internships or other jobs have prepared you for your work? How many of you worked with technology as a programmer/sysadmin/etc. before going into law and/or law enforcement? Any other advice for a techie interested in IP technology law?
do you believe that such behavior fits within the definition of "fair use" as you are being directed to interpret it? why or why not?
What is the Department of Justice's Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section's annual budget?
Are there currently any legal restraints on how CCIPS goes about doing it's job that the DOJ/CCIPS is attempting to strike down? If so, which are these?
My
Limekiller
A few questions:
Do you kick puppies for fun?
How do you sleep at night?
Are you afraid to enter churches for fear of immediate immolation?
Do Hillary, Jack Valenti, and Michael Eisner give you a reach around?
How many roads must a man walk down? Oh shit, guess you're coming for me now, huh?
What the hell were you thinking, being interviewed on slashdot?
What are you people smoking?
How does it feel to be part of a police force that only protects the uber wealthy?
What are the odds that you'll come to my rescue if the latest rapper steals a bassline I came up with for his album?
I think that covers the joke/moronic/biting questions.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
How do you decide which case / offenders to go after? Do industries / lobbies have influence? What about congress? What about individual citizens? Can you just go after whomever you have a personal grudge? What kind of checks are in place to monitor the triage process? Who are you accountable to?
-P
Why have ONE conviction when you can have TWO?
Why has corporate profit become more important the Fair Use and a healthy Public Domain? Why is it legal to use copy prevention techniques that will hinder/remove fair use and could stop items from going into the public domain? Why is it legal for the corrupted media giants to continue to pay off the dirty politicians to extend copyright laws? Don't you feel that this creates a perpetual copyright and thus is against the constitution? What US laws mention anything about "IP"? Since when is an idea your property? If you have an idea and share it with anyone, then that knowledge is no longer just your property. It is now information that is stored in my brain as well and no one has the right to remove that from me. Knowledge is meant to be free. If I share an idea with you, I have lost nothing in the process and yet I have enlightened you. Stop the corporate monopolies and greed, remove software patents and restore competition and innovation to the IT industry.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Why. Does. the Department of JUSTICE have a stable of lawyers to enforce copyright when that is a <blink> CIVIL </blink> matter?!!!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
If a large anti-piracy organization were to bring 35 million piracy cases to court, do you and your 40 lawyers have the resources to process these cases in a timely manner? Do you have sufficient jail cells to house them? Can the non-jailed population of the country provide the kind of income required to house them in a prison cell, pay for trials & evidence collection etc.?
I estimate 35 million as a low ball estimate of the number of people engaged in day to day software piracy. In reality I have never met someone who would not pirate software if asked, for free.
How strong is the "lost sales" argument that copyright holders usually make when prosecuting "not-for-profit" copyright infringement? Especially when the product is not tangible (software and music, not CDs)?
Although it is often mediatic, any student of accounting will immediately recognize that the number is merely an estimate of available infringing copies, further inflated by the assumption that every copy would have been bought. Both can be easily altered to craft an alarming number.
(Disclaimer: this question is not seeking to invalidate these numbers, but seeking to know how strongly they are considered from a legal standpoint).
The ENIAC Demo Competition
So IAMAL, but my layman understanding of music is that I buy a CD, and I'm not allowed to distribute any of the content on that CD because I don't own it. I am just buying the right to listen to the music, which seems like at least a vaguely reasonable justification for the insanely high prices of CDs (given that the media costs nothing) yet if the media is ever warped or scratched or for that matter screwed up from the factory I have to go out and rebuy the CD.
It seems like the record/movie companies want to have it both ways. That I have to pay for some physical product (and as such have to keep repaying for it every time I need a new copy, even though the physical product cost almost nothing in the store (and really nothing from someplace like apples music store)) but at the same time also saying I am really paying for the right to listen to the music and as such I can't distribute the content of the CDs because I don't own that. Now how is this at all a reasonable state of things? If I am going to be gouged my 11-18 dollars a CD for the right to listen to the album I would really like it more if I had some recourse when the content was inadvertantly lost. (Some people seem _so_ close to being there apple but haven't quite made it) I know the record companies are doing everything they can to bring legal action against everyone they can copying music in order to protect their ability to rip off the consumer, but are there any groups looking at either legal action, or working with the distribution companies to provide benifit to the consumer along the lines of not getting the shaft if the zero cost media is destroyed? And for that matter how do you feel about the law being used to protect a monopoly of distribution and dubious copyrights that don't really do anything for the artists (well they do something, but seemingly nothing when compared to the cash flow of the record companies?)
pre coffee rambing/>
Do you believe that current IP laws stifle innovation?
If so, do you believe that the level of such inhibition is within "acceptable" bounds?
How much of the Justice Department's time and resources will be allocated to the search for pirates? Is there a cutoff point of damages (real or imagined) that an illicit copier would have to produce to even have the matter worth investigating? -- Funksaw
How do you feel about the anti-circumvention provisions in the DMCA, specifically how they apply to non-copyrighted or public domain materials. It seems to me that this clause has granted corporations an unlimited copyright on any material they publish. This is not only unfair to the consumer, but unconstitutional. IANAL, but you are, so what is your opinion?
Visualize the world of wine
Rob, we're going to need you to turn in your key to the metaphor closet.
Do you see Open Source Software (Linux, UNIX, BSD) platforms and applications a threat to DRM security? Would you prefer the world be controlled by a more DRM-friendly platform (for greater control over alleged IP infringement)? Or was that all propaganda put fourth by another agency to discredit yours?
Informatus Technologicus
We often hear that software piracy costs X amount of dollars or music piract costs Y dollars every year. How are those numbers arrived at?
For example, let's say Pete Pirate grabs a copy of Microsoft Office and the latest Brittany Spears album from some site.
Microsoft has a list price of $499 for a full version of Microsoft Office XP Professional. But no one in the history of computing has ever paid full retail price for any copy of office. warehouse.com, about as mainstream as you can get sells it for $65 dollars less. You can get it for much less if you shop around or purchase it as part of an OEM deal.
Similarly, Brittany Spears's latest cd has a list price of $19. No one pays that either.
So did Pete pirate $520 worth of product or $447? That's about a 14% increase in damages.
And what's to stop a company from artificially inflating the MSRP of a product in order to inflate the damages?
Do you provide collabartion & training for canadain authorities?
How do you get along with the canadians?
How on earth do you nail anyone as it is very easy to claim some one broke into your machine and then broak into the system which your suing them about?
Copyright and patent law are more confusing and controversial (and important) than ever right now. This interview shows that you are trying to communicate with the public about these issues - is this a big change from the past? How much more time do you have to devote to an ever-more-anxious public and the (I'm sure) equally anxious industries that call upon you for help?
A frequent gripe with the geeks here at slashdot, myself included, is that apparently legislators are not sufficiently well informed to create IP laws, frequently proposing and enacting laws which either constrain individual rights in favor of protecting those of big corporations (like the DMCA), or are simply not effective, because they can never patch the frequently referred to "analog hole" which is always a required step for humans to get to the information.
Given that for ethical reasons, you may not give your honest opinion on said legislation since you are required to enforce them, I'd simply like to know if I can trust that you are sufficiently well-informed to give council on these ever emerging new IP legislations. Do you feel that you truly have sufficient technical experience as opposed to your obvious legal ones? Can you elaborate on what type of experience you feel helps to qualify you to truly understand the ramification of these legislations?
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
In some cases this decision is clear cut: the largest and costliest criminals should be dealt with first. But in a lot of cases on your Cybercrime page (notably, some of the targets in Operation Decrypt) you chose to prosecute a few of the "small fry." The same dragnet that netted convictions for a $14 million offender also snared a few guys who only caused losses of $7000. Interestingly, among the latter persons were some of the most skilled embedded security experts alive today.
So, how often do you target offenders based on pressure from the crime victim, high visibility, high (criminal) intelligence, or other factors not directly related to the crime? And who, besides the prosecutor's office, weighs in (indirectly or directly) on these decisions?
In fact, cetain "intellectual property" copyright holders like to muddy the watters here, so can you explain the difference between infringing someone's "intellectual property" rights and fair use?
For example, why wouldn't I go to jail for taping a song on the radio and playing it in my car, but now I cannot copy a CD that I buy and listen to it at home and at work?
Did the DMCA change my fair use rights?
-TheDawgLives suckitdown
I know that most of the cases involving IP infringemnet that the media gives any attention to are computer related. I feel almost certain that there is noncomputer IP infringement that occurs as well (think corporate espionage). How many of these noncomputer related cases do you get involved in? Why or why not?
My question is on similar lines, so i thought I'd rather reply to this post:
" We hear frequent mention in the press, that most internet crime happens from people outsied the US - Skylarov, the Pakistani who exposed the Passport flaw, open gateways from Asia pumping spam etc.
It is really astonishing to note that the most powerful nation with the best detectives and sleuths can be deterred for so long, by a few novices operating from abroad.
Question:
To control piracy, is it enough that the action taken is within the US, or a global consensus needs to be built up?
You have mentioned the word IP freuently - does it stand for copyright or patents?
Bride wants to marry IBM and screw Linux. Brother MS willing to pay any dowry."
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
How much money did Microsoft pay you guys to drop the ball with the monopoly thing? I mean come on, you made our nation's government look really weak and silly to the rest of the world by letting Microsoft off so easy (our entire federal approach towards corporations, our own free market, and monopolies is now in total question). So, at least tell us how much you earned by being Microsoft's mouthwhores. Must have been a lot.
Here in Britain, we recently shut down the governemental body that regulated our train services because they were tending to take the side of the small number of contact personnel at the train companies that they dealt with on a day to day basis rather than the side of the faceless multitiude of passengers who they only knew through a few angry mails.
Given that your department will (in the vast majority on cases) be working on behalf of a very very small number of copyright-holding organisations against potentially millions of nearly anonymous file sharers, how will you prevent this 'going native' phenomenon biasing your investigations in favour of people you having a close working relationship with, and how will you defend yourselves against the inevitable accusations that you have 'gone native' and are a 'private police force' for the copyright holders?
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
What is your opinion on the case of Daniel Peng? The internet at large is angry at the treatment of Peng by the courts - many consider sites like the one Peng created to be "common carriers" - that is, all Peng's site did was list the files other users had chosen to put on the academic network to be freely downloaded. Was it his responsibility to ensure that all the files listed on the academic network (which, unlike Napster, was a network he did not operate or design) were legitamate? While he may have been personally involved in pirating files (that is, he may have personally downloaded files to his computer) that was not the focus of the lawsuit. Peng was placed into a legal battle where he had no chance at victory, and as such had to settle out of court. What is your opinion on this case, and ones like it?
What is the difference between a person who records songs from the radio, versus one who records songs from the internet? They are both free to the end user. If you say that recording from the radio is piracy also, then the question of recording TV shows/movies arises. And don't say that the difference is in the commercials, because anyone who doesn't want them invading their media can eliminate them quite easily.
My question is twofold: First, In your workings with IP laws have you run across any particularly staggering shortcomings/ loopholes/ abuses that you were forced to work with/ around? and Second, If you were able to change any aspect of IP law... both how it is applied and how it is regarded/ adhered to... to make the system 'better,' what would it be? Thanks for your time!
Hail Eris
From what I have seen the vast majority of your efforts go to protect corporations and companies with vast resources. Can you give some examples where your department has helped individuals or the underdog versus a major company? How about examples where your department has exonerated those falsely accused?
Is there any connection between the DoJ and the USPTO? Is the frequency with which they grant patents, and the fact that a lot of those patents end up being challenged in court adding to the workload of the DoJ? Do you think that patent examiners have enough knowledge and training to handle the work they're being asked to perform?
Please provide your definition of Piracy and your definition of Sharing with respect to software and to music.
In the past, piracy was considered the illegal duplication and resale of software for profit. The key word there is RESALE because money was changing hands.
Sharing was just what it sounds like: sharing copies of software -- where no money changed hands -- which was considered a legitimate marketing vehicle by software companies because it gave them an increased market share and propagated proprietary file formats, even though they didn't immediately realize revenues based on a sale. Instead the model was get people to use it and maybe they would pay for the next version of the software.
Now sharing has transformed into piracy through industry campaigns and media (mis)use of the term, even though no money ever changes hands on file-sharing networks like Kazaa and the ill-fated Napster, or when you load copies of the same software package on two computers.
Can you explain this? I don't recall the courts being used to prosecute for sharing in the past, although the practice has now become common.
How do you respond to allegations that, at least with music piracy, piracy may actually help sell more CDs? There are numerous interpretations of the data that point to music sharing leading to increased sales through increased exposure.
I realize you folks are dealing with the enforcement of copyright laws (rather than their effects), but do you ever feel like you're acting against the best interests of both the general public and the recording industry in general? Please explain why or why not.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
How does it feel to work toward goals that are contrary to many of the found fathers? How does it feel to help support rewriting over a hundred years of copyright and patent laws? How does if feel to worship your new IP god as you ursurp a hundred years of intellectual freedom in the name of your golden god? When did you stop serving the people and start working for the golden god?
I miss America.
On the SCO case, versus IBM. What is the generally accepted legal definition of "derivative works", in terms of IBM's ownership of JFS and RCU? Because AFAIK, the version of JFS that is currently inside Linux originated at some point from the OS/2 operating system, a non-Unix-based system, and then was ported to Linux and AIX. I'm wondering if SCO has legal rights to software that is ported from one OS to another, then to another, where the second porting target OS is licensed by SCO.
Of course, I'm also wondering if it's legal to send my evil minions against Darl McBuyed.
This is not the sig you're looking for.
This question is answered here.
What is the department's current understanding of the boundary between "Fair Use" and infringment?
For software:
- Reverse engineering: For interface / file format compatability? For workalike replacement? How much can proprietary code be examined? What must be done to stay legal (or at least beyond the interest of the Departmen) and PROVE it?
- Code copying: How much before infringement begins? Is there a clear definition of the boundary if it isn't lines of code?
For music/movies/other entertainment programming:
- Time-shifting: Is it "Fair Use" to capture broadcast programming for listening/viewing at some other time?
- Space shifting? Is it "Fair Use" to make a copy to use in your car, workspace computer, etc.?
- Backup? Is it OK to make a backup copy - provided if you sell the copy or original the other is also transferred or destroyed?
- Sampling for inclusion of snippets in other works? If so, how much is "Fair Use" before "Infringement" begins.
In either software or entertainment programming: Does the department interpret the DMCA or other anti-"piracy" laws as trumping "Fair Use" rights, such that activity that would be legal under copyright "Fair Use" alone is illegal under anti-piracy laws?
In particular: Does the department believe that defeating copy-protection is a crime even if it is only used for activities that would be "Fair Use" if copy-protection were NOT defeated?
I recognize that this is both a matter of policy and court rulings, and that both are subject to change in the future. I also realize that the opinions of the department and the courts may differ - what I'm after is the department's current interpretation of what MAY be illegal and IS likely to result in prosecution by the department.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
How can you sleep at night?
My question has to do with how you feel at the end of the day. I realize that opinions will probably vary among team members, but I am curious as to how many of you go home at the end of the night feeling regret over your role in prosecution? In other words, do you really believe the laws you are using to prosecute are Just or are you tossing aside your own stake in the outcome ala "The Law is the law"?
To clarify, the phrase "Everyone deserves a good defense" can be applied to the classic example of the defense lawyer who defends someone who they know is guilty of some heinous act.
When asked to prosecute a case, do you consider the long-term, chilling effects a "win" could potentially have on research and development, fair use, etc. and does it leave you feeling soiled or do you honestly believe it is your patriotic or moral duty to prosecute using laws in which you may or may not completely believe? Can you refuse to take a case based on your own convictions or does that equate to professional suicide (at least with regards to your position with the DOJ)?
Because I have paid license fees for the same music several times, (albums, 8track then cassettes, then Cd's, now going to digital) I have been pleased to see the courts uphold the common-sensical concept of time-shifting and space-shifting. My question is, have you personally ever asked a friend or relative to videotape a show for you while you were out of town and is there some fundemental difference betweeen doing that and downloading an audio only recording of music you have already paid for (sometimes over and over again.)
I know that most of the cases that get media attention involve computer related IP infringemnet. I feel almost certain that there is noncomputer IP infringement that occurs as well (think corporate espionage, printing illegal copies of books). How many of these noncomputer related cases do you get involved in? Why or why not? If the case is why not, what makes the computer related IP infringement criminally illegal and the noncomputer related not so? Or is there another branch within the DoJ that handles the noncomputer related?
has said "fuck the government, get off our backs" yet?
What the fuck happened to the idea of this being a LIBERTARIAN SITE?
How seriously do you take a question from someone named "stinky wizzleteats"?
Your credit card information wants to be free.
Microsoft's entry into the console gaming field, the XBox, has been the cause of a bit of controversy in the IP arena. Microsoft thinks "hacking" the XBox is a violation of their intellectual property. A process now exists that allows a different OS to be installed on the XBox without physical modifications. From my point of view, this alternate use of the XBox only constitutes using the device in a manner not originally concieved of/allowed for by the designers. Does this use, in a manner not preconcieved of/planned for by the designers, constitute an IP violation? I do not believe you must sign any form of EULA when purchasing the XBox.
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
Boxers or Briefs?
Can we ask them how in God's name a corporation can get convicted of having a monopoly, abusing that monopoly and then get punished by in effect getting a reward?
Please characterize the types of criminals that you go after. Mostly warez rings? Businesses that don't license all their software? College kids with FTP sites?
I'm sure it's impossible for a group of 40 people to round up every IP criminal. How do you ensure that you aren't ignoring a piece of the pie?
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
The greatest of it!
Real Pirates kill people and steal their tangible property.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I think one thing that people struggle with is understanding what is actually legal to do with the media they purchase. I'm not talking about ethics, but the actual letter of the law about what I am allowed to do. So to simplify, what's legal or illegal about the following cases:
1) Copying a CD to tape to listen to in my car
2) Ripping a CD to listen to on my computer at work
3) Loaning a CD to a friend
4) Ripping a copy of a CD and giving those files to a friend
5) Ripping a copy of a CD and putting those files on Kazaa
6) Selling copies of the CD
Related to this, how does the volume of these activities influence them? Is it legal to make one copy of a CD for one friend? What if it's for 100 friends? or 500 friends? We can talk endlessly about the spirit of the law and the ethics of it, but the letter of the law is critically important here.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
You're all obviously very smart people, yet you continue to use dumb terms like "intellectual propery." Why? What is the benefit of using such a horribly mis-leading term?
I am curious about the true nature of copyrights. If I buy a tape of "Generic by Artist", I have paid the royalties for those songs by that artist. Do I now have a right to all forms of that songs by the artist or are the rights tied to that specific form of media? (I ask this because I was under the impression that a copyrighted peice of work is under copyright no matter what form of media it is on. Yet, in an article a RIAA spokesman said that if you own the song on 8-track you do not have the rights to the version of the song on a CD [even though the 8-track and CD version could be from the same master])
okay 3 questions
1. It used to be told (early 90's)that we had 24 hours to test a game when downloaded/copied from a friend as a trial to see if it would work on our system (the demo worked on anything but the games had higher system spec's)/ we liked it and wanted to buy it/ or to use briefly at say a lan party. Is/Was that Wrong or what is the exact way of working in this area? (i.e. johnny is at lan party and wants to play XYZ but it's 11pm and no store is open to sell it to him. He only wants it for that lan party, can he use a friends CD to play and remove game when done or must he run all over town till he finds that game than come back to the party)
2. how can we find what has become abandonware (company no longer cares about it)/ freeware (owner wants nothing for it) / and other vaild software compared to illegeal copies of software. I.E. how can I tell if the software offered at site X is legeal or illegeal?
3. There has been much noise and attack on file trading, will the DOJ start compiling a list of what is okay for file trading (Not copyright enforced, i.e. artist giving it away) and what is wrong(latest megarock star)? (i.e. a list of whats okay and whats not okay)
If DRM-included hardware does become the law via the CBDTPA (SSSCA) or any other legislation, how does this interact with regards to copyright expiration? The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent such DRM, thereby basically enforcing perpetual protection of the work. If the work is perpetually protected via this combination of law and technology, how can it be copyrighted legitimately, since the work will never *really* be able to join the public domain? This is analogous to trade secrets vs. patents, unless measures are taken to ensure the DRM encryption is removed once the copyright term is over. Or would that be illegal through the DMCA as well? The DMCA states, "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." The title referred to is title 17 of the US Code, which covers copyright. I can therefore assume that removing copyright protections on expired copyrights would not be against the law. However, the DMCA also forbids the selling of tools to circumvent the very same DRM. I find it hard to believe that the RIAA/MPAA would let these tools become available regardless of the user's intent and/or rights under copyright expiration rules. Any comments about this apparent paradox?
Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
With all of your undoubted expertese, why do you call 'Cracking' 'Hacking'?
Beep beep.
My wife is taking the BAR exam at the end of this month. Anything she should really concentrate on?
Thanks.
MORTAR COMBAT!
How do you differentiate yourself as from being viewed as a extension of the coporation? In the Adobe Case, it appears that you acted as an arm of Adobe to prosecute a foreign citizen. But, when a individual has had copywritten materials stolen, then several systems hacked to steal his identity, then more than 50,000 copies of his copywritten materials distributes, his phone calls were not even returned.
Fight Spammers!
What is your average case load per attorney? With the recent litigation announcements of the RIAA (to serve several hundred to several thousand alleged infringers in one fell swoop) and the explosion of users who infringe, how do you plan to prevent the IP enforcement systems that you work with from becoming so overburdened with active cases that they become ineffectual (like some state Parole systems, for example)?
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
According to an Ipsos-Reid poll conducted over a year ago(1), over fifty million people, nearly one quarter of the American population, have used the Internet to download a music file. Even if only 1/2 of these downloads were illegal (which is a staggeringly conservative estimate,) some 30 million Americans have downloaded a piece of copyright-protected music which they have not paid for.
The RIAA has recently announced their intention to pursue individuals who use these filesharing services. Under current law, the RIAA can pursue civil damages as high as $150,000 and criminal damages as high as $250,000/5 years against people who share music they have not purchased(2). The RIAA has demonstrated on repeated occasions that they have no qualms about aggressively pursuing individuals and organizations they believe to be in violation of their copyrights(3).
My question is a simple question; I have no desire to hear about caveats, nuances of the legal system, assertions that the law is the law, or similar responses. I am quite aware that I am not a lawyer, and while I do not doubt you could find a number of nits to pick with my question and assertions, I hope that you can forgive the shortcomings of my legal understanding and address the central issue, as that is what I am most concerned about. I am would very much appreciate an honest, candid response to a very fundamental issue in this matter.
My question is this: is it just that the average American citizen can be charged with up to $150,000 per song in civil damages alone simply by downloading a song they haven't paid for?
(1) http://www.ipsos-reid.com/media/dsp_displaypr_us.c fm?id_to_view=1414
(2) http://www.riaa.com/issues/piracy/penalties.asp
(3) http://www.riaa.com/news/filings/default.asp
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
The world's full of kids of all ages who like to take things apart to see how they work, and engineers who need to find out how things work. There are some open questions about how current law affects them.
What are the department's policies and guidelines about whether an instance of reverse engineering violates intellectual property rights? Would the department consider criminal action against someone who reverse engineered a product if the click-through license said not to?
What factors would the department consider if trying to decide whether a security researcher's work was legitimate?
Does the department recognize a public interest in publicizing flaws in commercial software, even if it involves extracing proprietary information?
Finally, from your personal perspective as believers in the rule of law, what are the top two or three changes you see as necessary in US IP law?
When Kevin Mitnick was tried, the 'damages' listed in his trial were calculated simply by taking the arbitary value that DEC, et al. attributed to the software he copied, and adding them all together (regardless of any actual damages suffered). This (and being the first big cybercrime case that the Justice Dept. wanted to come out strong against) was a primary motivation in the overly severe (which has been admitted post-trial) sentance handed down. Combined with this, unprecidented media hype to Kevin being held without even a bail hearing pre-trial.
How has the Justice Department's methods of assigning damages, investigation tecniques, and tech savvy (ie. telling the difference between hype and fact) improved since the Mitnick case? And would Mitnick have been tried as severely if he was being tried by today's Justice Department as opposed to the 'wild west' of the computing era?
Granted that there is file sharing that violates both the intent and the letter of US law, and that the law should be enforced: to what extent is the "enforcement" of such laws crippled by the behavior of the victims? What do you think of the argument that the ubiquity of illegal file sharing is less a function of the availability of the technology than of an imbalance between the cost to consumer of the works being illegally copied and the demand for those works? Or, by extension, that the artificial limits placed by the copyright holders on the legal distribution of their work (staggered release dates, different pricing in different markets, etc.) encourages illegal distribution to compensate for those limits? At what point does the cost of enforcing these laws become the responsibility of the victims rather than of the majority of taxpayers who do not violate these laws?
I have put some of my own music on the net, which I wrote, performed and produced myself. I'm not affiliated with any major organisation, and have given permission for anyone in the world to copy and share this music free of charge.
When you are investigating a suspected mp3 pirate, how do you distinguish such legally owned and shared files such as mine from ones that have copyright restrictions on them?
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Do you go after violators?
sulli
RTFJ.
What if this becomes a losing battle, where advances in encryption and anonymising technology make it impossible to tell who's downloaded what. Systems like Freenet are already quite secure. What will happen if encrypted hard-drives become the norm, and P2P becomes fully anonymised? Even if not 100% secure, is it worth stake-outs, bugs, telephone line taps and the like just to secure the conviction of one filesharer?
If conviction of filesharers becomes next to impossible due to technological innovations, do you foresee a change in copyright law? Would this law be something like an improved DMCA, where all computers must be monitored for illegal content? Or do you think that the current rights of copyright holders such as the RIAA and MPAA will be reduced?
In many cases, there are numbers brought up which represent the "losses" to the software industry due to pirating. These numbers usually reflect estimated number of pirated copies multiplied by the retail price. Is this a fair way to guage losses? Number of copies pirated does NOT equal number of potential copies sold, so are there any plans to come up with a way to more realistically estimate losses?
Too bad all agencies and programs of the Federal Government are not subjected to this question.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I'm disturbed by the way large conglomerates determine and demand damages based upon projected profits should a product's IP have not been violated and piracy had not occurred.
It's a somewhat flawed argument to claim that $5,000,000 worth of software was confiscated in a piracy raid when off the shelf, at the point of purchase, the software would only have had a $2,000 street value (I'm referring to how much the pirates price the products).
Basic economic theory would point out to you that the lower the cost of ownership, the greater the demand for that product. Even if the retail value of a shop's pirated products had been worth millions, I can't imagine how they would have been able to sell these products that the prices they were pegging it at.
Although piracy is wrong per se, how much in lost profits should a company be allowed to attribute to piracy? I think cases where students from universities are hauled up for file sharing and the penalties imposed on them are totally absurd although the crime is similar (piracy) but the damage, obviously can't possibly be so high.
How does the law make sense of this? How far should IP be protected and would we ever see an end to some of the whimsical claims made by IP owners?
Here in Canada, we've seen the government move to impose levies on media that could be used to duplicate and distribute copyrighted information/software. The increase of the cost in media could be quite substantial.
Do you see this as a viable method of protecting IP, or does it stand to become an ourobouros devouring it's tail as the money that is collected by these levies is poured back into finding more ways to tax the consumer, who may or may not be using the medium in a manner the levies are intended to tax?
Thanks.
Where does the term IP come from? Where in the legal code is the term "Intellectual Property" defined? After all copyright law, patent law, etc. are very different things.
The RIAA has made it clear that it believes the Home Audio Recording Act is narrowly focused on analog copies, and that *any* digital copying of music is copyright infringement. This seems to fly in the face of fair use. A couple of concrete examples to focus the questions:
Whereas I used to make mix tapes to send home to my family, I now make mix CDs. The RIAA thinks this is illegal. Do you?
I regularly copy CDs to listen to in the car, mostly to minimize the loss if the car is broken in to. The RIAA thinks this is illegal. Do you?
When my friends ask to borrow a CD, I generally burn them a copy, rather than risk them losing or destroying the original. The RIAA thinks this is illegal. Do you?
What's good for the syndicate is good for the country. --Milo Minderbinder
That's a perfectly legitmate question. If they are lawyers, they should be making great pains to be ACCURATE and not use such a slanted and downright incorrect term as "piracy".
Go to the U.S. copyright office and put "Fair Use" in the search bar.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
How do you place a value on damages?
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Forgot to mention...
IANAL
bwh
There are specific requirements in the DMCA that plaintiffs must fulfill. Failure to fulfill these requirements invalidates any statement of "good faith" in pursuing defendants. Yet, sites are being shut down which have no content simply becuase a spider program trips over some keywords.
Can the DOJ advise or require plaintiffs to verify the content (as the DMCA requires them to do) before sending out the lawyers? Can they penalize them for failure to do so?
Would it be possible for the DOJ to require plaintiffs to apply for a certificate of good faith or some such document to prevent abuse by the plaintiffs?
AAny suggestions to that effect that might be more feasible if those are too resource consuming?
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
The distinction between natural and intellectual property (i.e., rivalrous vs. non-rivalrous goods) makes the case for copyrights/trademarks/patents actually being property pretty thin.
For example, it is at least much more difficult to place prior restraint on and/or proper defenses around music, names, and ideas than on and/or around a house, jewelry, and a car.
I'm not opposed to copyright (and patent, and trademark) protection, and in fact, I think such things are desirable as incentive to produce, although the current copyright term is so ridiculously long as to be an anti-incentive.
However, it is not clear to me that we the public instead of they, the copyright holders, should be paying for the investigation and punishment of violators, especially given the much greater scope of the problem and consequent cost versus the protection of natural property.
After that long-winded preface, my question is therefore: why has the government chosen to make IP enforcement a criminal, rather than civil, matter, given the added costs, both in fiscal and libertarian terms?
Kyle
[ home ]
/* begin obligatory back story */
/* end obligatory back story */
Back in high school, some one broke into my car and stole my stereo, speakers, and a collection of about 50 audio CDs. The police department expressed their condolences, but told me that there wasn't really anything they could do about it. My insurance didn't cover it either, and the whole incident ended up costing me over $1000 in property.
My questions to the DoJ are these:
Are intellectual property rights more difficult to enforce than physical property rights, or vice versa? Are the punishments for IP theft fair in comparison to those of PP theft? Are works of art in a physical medium considered primarily as intellectual or physical property (or both) with respect to the law?
Fight or flight its all the same
Live to die another day
--Ryan
Sorry. That's:
U.S. Copyright Office
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
How do you feel personally about cases that involve people sharing files. Not hacking networks or destroying and manipulating an individual's private information. But, people, more and more frequently younger people, sharing files? In particular where do you stand on the RIAA/P2P situation? Is it just a matter of "This is where the money is/Just doing what I'm told." Or, do you feel deeply about your position and if so how do you think it helps to progress civilization? I am trying to ask these questions in an unbiased manner but it is difficult it understand your side of the coin.
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
Q: Much has been said in the media about how recent Acts (e.g. DMCA, Sonny Bono, etc.) have reneged on the "public good" side of the classic balance in patent and copyright law. Can you provide counterpoint to the accusation that the Federal Government's treatment of these issues is up for sale to corporations with deep pockets? I am sincere in asking this; we see plenty of examples in the press about how the public is losing ground to patent and copyright holders, but no examples to the contrary.
Q: In general, what practical effects has the DMCA had from a prosecutorial standpoint? How has it aided/hindered prosecutors?
Q: Most people who actually have an opinion about the USPTO feel it is a severely broken institution, epsecially when it comes to the patent side. How much does the rest of the Federal Government realize this, if at all? Is there any support within the Federal bureaucracy to bring some sanity back to how USPTO executes patent law?
Q: "Intellectual Property" is a clever misnomer, used to smooth over the big differences between copyright, trademark and patent law, and also to give the false veneer of "property" to what is supposed to be a limited grant of monopoly. Is everyone in your group truly a "jack of all trades" in all these disparate areas, or does your group subdivide itself into areas of specialty?
Q: Lawyers and computer geeks both have plenty of jokes about them. I know that computer geeks, at least, have the capacity to laugh at themselves and their profession as represented in this merciless humor (I always get a kick out of the "Nick Burns" character on SNL, having done user support myself).
Lawyers, on the other hand, often come off as taking themselves too seriously. Do you also find humor and insight in certain lawyer jokes? What are the best lawyer jokes you've come across, from a lawyer's point of view?
I'm out... use all, some, one or none of these, as you like...
my ip address is 127.0.0.1
and what do you see me sharing, and what protocols?
bonus question: am i sharing anything legel?
Are you able to move against overseas mass copying organizations, or are you tied up like the DEA to only prosecuting local infringers?
Followup: Locally, are you going for mass distributors or people who install software on their grandparents' computers?
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
Please, sirs, wait until the Slashdot editors submit the question list to you before answering. Thank you.
Also, are you concerned by the fact that enforcement of laws regarding "intellectual property" will erode respect for the law rather than increase compliance, since these laws make a large proportion of the U.S. population felons?
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Are you a user of any of the file sharing programs out there?
Do you have any plans to introduce educational programs? Some of today's rampant copying comes from those still in school without an appreciation of IP.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
As you no doubt know GPL'ed software is protected by copyright, though that copyright is used in a somewhat unusual manner.
Has the FBI ever gone after someone who has misused GPL software? Has their ever been a felony copyright arrest for open source software license or copyright violation?
Given discovery of large scale, knowing violation of that copyright does the FBI approach the violators in the same way it does those who are involved in other forms of IP theft?
How might the usual lack of direct costs (MSRP) for open source software effect any prosecution for GPL violations?
GPL'ed and other open source software seems especially deserving of protection. Open source software is generally developed by smaller developers or those with fewer legal resources. It would be interesting to hear of the role the FBI might play on behalf of the people generally. From the Adobe case we are aware that you are very aggressive in going after individuals, including those who expose flaws and the very misleading marketing of some of the bigger for profit companies.
Should our system of copyright and patents be designed to make people rich by government enforced monopoly or should they be designed with a focus first on spurring innovation and improving the general good. How does retroactive copyright extension do this? It seems on its face that the material was already developed under the older incentive plan.
The way the BellCore VS Craig Neidorf case?
In constitutional law we occasionally hear reference to the term Constitutional Repugnancy. Under the theory of constitutional repugnancy, laws that are ignored or disregarded by the majority of the US citizenship is repugnant, and they're forth not constitutional.
In your opinion, has copyright law fallen into this area of being constitutionally repugnant, and if not, how far from constitutional repugnancy is current copyright law?
It seems to me that the whole problem about file sharing is a repeat of what happened when cassette tapes and VHS came out. New technology is always going to scare the people who are trying to make money off of the old ones. Do you think that cracking donw on file sharing is a better idea than innovating yourselves and finding new ways to make people WANT to buy these products?
Also, how do you feel about the fact that most of the artists whose intellectual property is being taken get only a small percentage of the cost of their art while the record labels take the biggest portion? Isnt file sharing a better way to let them get their art out without the redtape of going through a record company, and gaining fans to see them perform live, which is really where the artists should be making most of their money?
lastly I would like to thank you for taking the time to confront your "oposition" in an intelligent debate.
A contract can only be valid if freely joined into by both parties. You can't dictate a contract. Therefore any EULA is not a valid or binding contract.
I know the RIAA is readying to prosecute file swappers for copyright infringement. With such a large amount of people in the US doing that, do you think it will actually stop people from doing it or not?
I have a question regarding caseload that is probably best split in 3 parts:
a) Since IP covers several somewhat related areas (e.g., copyrights, patents and trademarks), how are your enforcement efforts split between these areas (i.e., how often do you track down trademark violations versus file sharing, etc.).
b) How many cases do you pursue in a year and what kind of categories do they fall under (e.g., individual file sharing, corporate patent infringement, etc.).
c) What percentage of those cases end up at trial?
similar to this topic, I'd like to present a question to copyrighted works on dvd that end up going into the public domain (ex: "A Boy and His Dog", early Don Johnson movie). As something like this would be in the public domain, yet bound by the DMCA as the dvd is css'ed, how are these instances treated in terms of "piracy" and the dmca itself?
Q1: Do you, or anyone in your office, regularly read slashdot?
How does it feel to pursue crimes for the benefit of corporation instead of for the benefit of society? With the continual copyright extensions imposed by Congress, it's hard to view prosecuting individual infringements as beneficial to anyone besides the corporations.
Now that it has been with us for a few years, and doesn't seem to be going anywhere, how has the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) affected your job? I would assume that you now see cases of this nature, are such frequent, and how do such cases often go? Is this law really providing for the common good of the people, or is it simply creating more problems than it is solving?
And, of course, what are your views on this law, has it actually helped to slow the tide of copyright infringement, or not? And considering the boundryless nature of the internet, do you expect that a law, such as this, or any IP law for that matter, will be effective for much longer?
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
Why are you under the umbrella of the DOJ? I would think anti-piracy matters would be dealt with by the Coast Guard or the Navy.
1. What laws do you least like enforcing?
2. (somewhat related) Do you think IP laws have become too tilted in favor of IP holders? If so, what reforms would you like to see enacted?
3. First, some background: Many people on Slashdot and in the Open Source and Free Software communities detest the phrase "intellectual property". The argument is that IP is not "property", but a privelege granted to holders for the public benefit. I have always contended that the issue is irrelevant because whether or not IP is a "right" it can still be limited. For example, your right to hold land is limited and can be revoked if you fail to pay property taxes. A similar argument revolves around the term "piracy" and "theft" in relation to IP. OK now the questions:
A. Do you agree that legally there is no such thing as Intellectual "property"?
B. If the answer to A is "yes", does it bother you a great deal that an inacurate term is being used to describe a class of laws?
C. Do you think the term "IP" is an Orwellian attempt to control language and create a right that formerly didn't exist? Likewise, do you think "file sharing" as opposed to "piracy" is equally Orwellian but in the opposite direction?
D. Do you think this whole argument is just silly?
E. Does language really change thought, or better yet (since you're a lawyer), do you think it has an impact on laws over time? I have some friends who are lawyers, and they say that a lot of old English words remain in the law because they have established meanings that don't change over time. Be that as it may, is the legal system vulnerable to "newspeak"?
F. Can you suggest some unbiased replacements for "IP", "piracy/sharing", and "theft/(law)viilation"? Better yet, are there obscure words being used by lawyers that might help us if they found their way into the common vernacular?
4. The other end of the spectrum--what laws do you most like enforcing? What gives you the "warm fuzzies" and makes you feel it's all worthwhile?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Given that the internet spans borders more easily than any previous technology, what do you expect can (or should) be done to provide IP protection at an international level? It seems to be all too likely that any such attempt will result in a least common denominator set of regulations that grant IP rights along the lines of the strictest rules in any affected country. At the same time there is a risk that IP protections could be used to seriously restrict free speech.
With SSL transactions (i.e. secure privacy) now as cheap as any other and many nations desperate for money, how do you stop this type of traffic? Can the (international) suppliers of credit be pressured into erecting practical and enforceable monetary "firewalls" around the U.S?
is punishabull buy life/death sentences, whereas stealing J. Public bullined buy use of phonIE payper liesenses is ms0k?
.asps.
lookout bullow. the Godless fraudulent greed/fear based georgewelllian fuddites spew ?pr? bullchips from both sides of their corepirate
consult with/trust in yOUR creator. vote with yOUR wallet. that's the spirit.
the daze of the phonIE corepirate nazi bullshipping industrIE is WANing into coolapps.
Many readers here understand that government agencies, in general, exist to preserve & protect the profits of corporate America (the people who pay for election campaigns). We realise that the Dept. of Agriculture is there to protect companies like Tyson Foods from consumer lawsuits, and the FDA's mission is to assure that the largest drug companies extract maximum profits from American citizens. We are generally aware that while major companies like Enron are exempt from tax, the IRS, will diligently collect from average citizens, and that pollution and health laws are enforced only when it is not too costly for large corporations. And, closer to this issue, the public is quite aware that the FCC regulates for the convenience of media moguls at immeasurable cost to the public and the availability of a free forum for the expression of ideas.
And so we'd like to know if the DoJ can present an argument that it is somehow better. Is your IP division here to serve the citizens of America or a corporate lobby? Specifically how do consumers and producers benefit from your work, as opposed to middlemen and attorneys?
...omphaloskepsis often...
How does the RIAA and/or other IP lobbying groups actually affect your day to day activities? Is there pressure to go after certain people or groups? If so, how badly is the pressure felt?
(These might be a little out of order, so mix-and-match.)
1. Intellectual property is property because it has a commercial value in the marketplace.
2. Infringement deprives the IP-owner of that value.
3. The IP laws are designed to stimulate innovative thinking and implementation of new ideas, technologies, etc. by creating incentives for IP authors. Ultimately, stimulation of IP creation is supposed to benefit the general public (e.g., new life-saving drugs discovered via the promise of the patent system's exclusivity protections).
4. If infringers are permitted to deprive IP of its value, the incentives to create new IP will be diminished.
5. Intentional infringement (or whatever the standard is for criminal infringement) is a particularly egregious deprivation of the value of the IP.
6. Intentional infringement (unlike unintentional infringement) is easy to prevent--just don't do it--so more severe punishment is not unfair to the infringer.
7. Criminal punishment should apply where the wrongdoing adversely affects the general public's interests. Criminal authorities represent the public's interests.
I have seen several breakdowns which show that the extensions do not significantly monetarily benefit the creator or their descendants, and the public perception is that copyright extensions are enacted at the behest of a few large corporations.
If you can, please provide any information that indicates why copyright extensions are needed, to whom they are truly useful and why, and how (if ever) they can be beneficial to the public commons. Thank you.
To what extent do the political appointees in the DOJ (Ashcroft et al) affect the enforcement of anti-piracy laws? Is IP enforcement any different under the current Administration that it was under the previous?
I'm asking this because I assume that most rank and file DOJ attorneys are career and not political appointees.
How does it come about that college students, guilty of writing software, can be sued for tens of millions of dollars, yet corporate thieves from any number of companies (i.e., Adelphia, Enron, WorldCom/MCI), who literally steal the pensions that their employees - you know, the ones that actually DO THE WORK - rely on for retirement, go virtually unpunished?!?
Here's the text. I cnosider this fair use clause very disappointing, and I can't believe we pay people to come up with this stuff. How can they write into law "the nature of the work" without explaining what that means? What if I interpret that the digital nature of a CD makes it ok to make as many digital copies as I can? This Fair Use clause is VERY vague.
;-)
Also, two of the qualifications for a library or archive to make ONE backup copy of a work are: "(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage; (2) the collections of the library or archives are open to the public". So I'm allowed to make one digital copy of the song on my CD as long as I register a non-profit mp3-archive.org and then stream it to the public off of my server?
Hmmm, was quoting this fair use?
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
$8.95/mo web hosting
not only for legal terms, but tech terms as well. You are absolutely correct about the RIAA's (as well as sco's and any other company that has ever involved legality for profit motives in new and untested social and or technological developments) misleading/blatent improper use of legal terms. I would be very interested personally to see how the IP Lawyers respond to this.
The world is a comedy to those who think and a tragedy to those who feel.
What did you learn about your interpretation of DMCA from the acquittal in the Sklyarov / Elcomsoft prosecution?
1. Intellectual property is property because it has a commercial value in the marketplace.
I disagree. Intellectual property is property that has value to the owner. The only reason why it would be persecuted is if it has value in the marketplace, however.
2. Infringement deprives the IP-owner of that value.
Of the value, but not of the actual property. Thus, they have reduced the value of the property but not deprivation of the actual property.
4. If infringers are permitted to deprive IP of its value, the incentives to create new IP will be diminished.
Yes.
5. Intentional infringement (or whatever the standard is for criminal infringement) is a particularly egregious deprivation of the value of the IP.
This is my question, what makes it criminal as opposed to civil? It seems like it is purely a civil matter to me, but I understand that individuals and companies don't always have the resources to seek damages (and get them.)
7. Criminal punishment should apply where the wrongdoing adversely affects the general public's interests. Criminal authorities represent the public's interests.
By dilluting the value of the IP at hand, it allows the public generaly easier access to that IP (at the cost of future development, but that is a short trip down a fallacy filled road) so why is it persecuted on a criminal level and not civil?
I'm not saying so much that I disagree with criminalizing it, but I think it is better suited for civil cases. That's why I asked the question, I'm just unclear on what it takes for it to actually be criminal and is it actually effective to do so?
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
For the same reason that engineers are rarely accepted in a jury selection process, I would imagine that lawyers with a wide technical background and a liberal mind would be poor candidates for jobs being offered by the DoJ. They want peons with a penchant for reading case histories and regurgitating briefs along the lines of "the law's the law; why change it?". They don't want people like you who might not have faith in the laws they prosecute. It'd be like trying to get a job as a priest coming from a background of athiesm and open-minded thinking.
In a hypothetical file trading network, one user posts copyrighted material. A second user downloads the copyrighted material. Which user has violated the copyright?
Before you write this off as sarcastic, realize that every major IP corporation at some point or another has knowingly and willfully infringed on other individuals' IP rights. Many of those same CEOs are now trying to restrict legal practices that pale in comparison to the IP "theft" they themselves committed. Several companies "borrowed" IP and resources from the Universities they attended/professored. Microsoft admits to "dumpster diving". Most of the hobby "garage" inventors aquired their materials/computing resource from behind their employers' backs. Will you be actively and agressively presuing those crimes, the details of which are public knowladge?
Also, will you be willing to investigate Open Source license violations, covert or overt. Will we, the small people at Slashdot be able to count on you to investigate the violations we dig up?
Well, will you?
Regarding tools provided by anonymizer.com and similar companies, how effective are these for those concerned about their privacy, as it applies to typical file sharing services (Kazaa, Gnutella, etc.).
If they are effective, how do you work around such services in order to "bust the bad guy"? If they are in effect not an issue, how are such companies allowed to continue under false representations, if in fact the justice department is aware of them?
Do you think that a never expiring copyright could actually stifile innovation, rather than promote it -- as the founding fathers intended? Do you believe that intellectual property is greater, less then, or equal to physical property rights? How do you feel about Disney making an enormous profit off of public domain works, and at the same time being one of the driving forces behind extending the life of copyright, and thus preventing their own IP from entering the public domain? If you knew that in 100 years, IP theft would be as rampant, or more rampant, than it is today, would you get a different job, or just work harder than you do now? Do you believe that it is morally ok to take every legal means necessary to put an end to IP crimes, even if it would bring about strong negative effects to the world economy as a whole?
Well, with some of the inflections changed, "stinky wizzleteats" might sound like "Death to Infidels" in Arabic.
Or maybe it doesn't.
"Take him, not me! I was loyal! I gave you all those names, what more do you want!?!" rallying cry of a new MilleniumBy any reasonable assessment, there are - literally - millions and millions of people infringing copyright laws on a daily basis. A quick look at the current state of P2P networks will reveal this.
My question is this: Given the sheer volume and numbers you are dealing with, how does your agency decide how and to whom you should prosecute regarding enforcement of IP laws? How do you avoid "selective" prosecution and equal protection issues in doing so?
Followup question: Do you think your enforcement actions will have any impact on the problem as a whole or do you believe it will be rendered similarly to speeding (ie: everyone is doing it, only a very small few get caught) over the long term?
The RIAA claims "lost sales" damages all over the place, and other questioners have addressed some of the interesting logic/economics going into their claims. My question is, to what extent are their lost sales our problem? They lose sales whenever I borrow a CD at the library (Mind, I don't copy it, just listen a few times) or whenever I buy a used CD from a bargain store.
On the flip side, I understand that the RIAA makes a certain amount of money from every writable CD that I buy, regardless of its end use. Considering the extra money I paid, why can't I consider myself entitled to burn any RIAA music to that CD?
Have you ever caught one of your family members sharing pirated material?
Your question is somewhat pointless when directed towards these folks (the executive branch of the government). You should ask that to the legislative branch. The DOJ implements the laws - they dont make them.
There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.
There have been many instances of Open Source theft by companies as well as others taking "credit" where it is not due. Does the DOJ just go after those it is politically pressured to go after? In other words, because a individual developer is not making direct money does this affect your stances on IP law?
Also, how do you feel about the DOJ under George W. Bush dropping the Microsoft case like a Hot Potatoe and selling out to a settlement which is now being flaunted by Microsft right now?
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
Approximately what fraction of your cases start within your office versus complaints from other government agency versus complaints from private industry?
i am a web designer and sometimes i use images in my work from a website that lets people upload their images for commercial use as long as the artist gets credit.
Should a website have a "webliography" that lists all the contributions: text, images, sounds? Should this somehow be standardized (built-in to the html standard?) I want to give credit, but the red-tape seems to be increasing exponentially.
Do you think it would be a good idea to create zones where all ip is free and available for use by anyone without stating a work's lineage? Anything in that arena would be fair game.
Do you think the internet IS that arena?
Do you believe corporations should be allowed to lock up the internet for their sole profit as was done with Radio in the 80's and 90's?
Do I need to send a royalty payment to Bon Jovi if I sing air guitar to "You Give Love a Bad Name" in front of all my friends at my little brother's bar mitzvah? (he's paying me $50 to perform - yes I am that good!)
What is the difference between a patent and a copyright?
Would you say your department will continue to grow (more employees) under the current administration?
Bibo Ergo Sum.
I am certainly not trying to defend anyone illegally trading or selling copyrighted material. However, I question the evidentiary numbers provided by the MPAA and RIAA concerning the cost to the music, software, and film industries.
Certainly, when someone steals a piece of hardware (say a TV), they are taking away the ability of the owner to make money by selling the hardware to someone else. Less obvious is the fact that the thief won't be in the market for a legitimate purchase of the product either.
But these soft products are different. When someone illegally obtains one of these products, they are only costing the seller the price the thief would have paid.
Now, if someone could wave a magic wand and make it impossible to illegally copy any copyrighted material (and deleting all items already obtained illegally), is it reasonable to expect that every person who has illegally obtained a copy would buy a legitimate copy? I think the answer is obviously "No." Certainly some would. But citing the number of illegally obtained soft products and multiplying by the retail cost is not indicative of the actual damages. Even half that number is probably wishful thinking.
Where is a realistic approximation? And what about the positive aspects, such as concert sales for bands sampled via P2P networks; software that becomes much more widely known than it would have been, resulting in purchases at companies or of upgrades; or theater camcorder recordings that generate more interest at the box office and in DVD sales later? And what about the criminalization of fair use that gets lumped into the term "piracy?"
How can any legitimate attempt to generate support for enforcement of genuine encroachment on copyright holder's rights completely ignore extremely relavent issues like these?
Xesdeeni
It should be "You're welcome" You are welcome.
I'm sure you get many more complaints than you are able to prosecute. Could you explain in some detail the factors that go into deciding which complaints to examine further?
How do you suggest developers promote the good, legal aspects of file sharing and p2p networks?
Groups like the RIAA and the MPAA want to paint all file sharing software with the same brush, and have lawmakers think of "piracy" and "theft" when they see the term file sharing. There are many legitimate uses for file sharing p2p software that may never be explored because of the over-zealous efforts of the RIAA and MPAA.
Large corporations could use p2p file sharing software to implement the next genration of group ware, or load balance 'batch' processing of files using the techniques employed by kazaa and Gnutella. Many legitimate investors are probably scared away by the bad name that groups like the RIAA and MPAA try to give to p2p file sharing.
I know that it might be hard to see the whole forest from your day to day work in the trenches fighting copyright infringement, but I'd appreciate it if you took the time to think about and comment on the long term damage being done to the competitiveness of American corporations by the short sighted tactics used by some lobbying groups.
Thanks for taking the time to answer our questions.
The reason that breaking copy-protection schemes is illegal is pretty simple. If you were to break one and distribute the hack, they wouldn't have much of a case against you otherwise; you could simply say that it is there as a means of making backups (like Hotline, KaZaA, etc do). But lots of people would download it, and use it to pirate stuff, and never get caught.
However, with this law, they can sue your pants off, and that is what they want. The law was poorly written and screws home users as well, but its purpose was to target pirates.
Now, as for why the government favors copyright holders over individuals, the answer is entirely obvious. Who pays for their campaigns?
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
Content industry groups complain most often about millions in lost sales over the past 4 years and blame piracy for those losses. Most other industries experienced loss on a similar scale, but have no technology phenom (i.e. Napster, Kazaa) to blame it on.
It seems content owners (and to some degree, software companies) are successfully leaning on the law to prop up bottom lines from a bygone era.
Do you see the IP-related laws cases are currently prosecuted under as legitamtely applying to IP issues? Is it possible that many of the high-loss cases are more attributable to economic factors than IP violations? Have the content owners rendered the economy null (vs. piracy), as far as its effect on profits?
Alternatively, do you believe it's impossible to control this, ala the prohibition era? Will some change to the cultural and business landscape be necessary to accomodate inevitable copyright infringment in file-sharing?
When the movie studios advertise DVDs, the advertisement always says "Buy it today!" (or "By it [insert-time-frame-here]") or "Your last chance to own [insert-title-here]!".
Yet the movie studios insist that we have not purchased the content, but merely licensed it. It seems that the studios are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Isn't this be a clear-cut case of false advertising? If so, why isn't the FTC cracking down on this?
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
This question has two parts:
Part One: As far as what I have read about copyright law in the United States, there seem to be only two criminal offenses in Title 17, the anticircumvention provisions in Chapter 12 and the criminal penalties for "willful" copying of copyrighted works "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or" copying copyrighted works that "have a total retail value of more than $1,000" in Chapter 5 (which is obviously arguable -- especially since the statute goes on to say that having committed the act does not prove guilt).
Unless there are other criminal offenses in Title 17, the vast majority of copyright law is civil and not criminal. How do you justify your use of public funds to help private corporations with their civil cases?
Part Two: Almost everything I have read about copyright, patent, and trademark law has stated that ideas are not property. Copyright, patent, and trademark are specific sets of privileges (not rights, as rights are given by God or nature and cannot be taken away by law) with respect to ideas, but are not ownership over those ideas per se.
If ideas are not property, then what is "intellectual property"? Can you justly call yourself "intellectual property" lawyers when you are actually intellectual privilege lawyers?
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
I the problem i have with this is step 7. 7. Criminal punishment should apply where the wrongdoing adversely affects the general public's interests. Criminal authorities represent the public's interests. The problem with this is the merkeyness of the definition of what adversly affects the general public's intrests. At some level someone can argue that ANYTHING adversely effects the public intrests. There is no clean test of this so anything or nearly anything can be construed this way. These merky 'lines' lead to ever expanding definition of public intrests. This IS happening with copygight law.
If you are getting paid to do this work and you are assumed to be the experts, what checks/balances are in place to keep you honest in stating the parameters of the problem. We are constantly hearing exaggerated statistics of billions lost to piracy from the coporate interests that are basically your sole customers in your persuits. To put it simply, isn't it in your best interests to propagate these falsifications?
What safeguards are in place to protect file-sharers wrongfully accused by big media conglomerates of copyright infringement?
Audio tapes sold in the states (and probably everywhere else too) have a built in tax that goes to the RIAA, on the assumption that theyre going to be used to copy songs RIAA members own the rights to.
It seems to me then, that you are automatically deemed guilty of IP violations when you purchase the tapes - and are punished at the tiem of purchase.
The double jepordy prvision in American law would seem to preclude further prosecution.
Id be really suprised if I learnt there wasnt a similar tax on video casettes.
(What happened to innocent until proven guilty is what I wanna know? All the audio cassettes I ever purchased were for the noble purpose of copying pirate C64 and Vic20 games! The RIAA didnt deserve a stinking cent of those IP violations!)
Do your IP activities include Copyright Infringement? If so, what types of cases do you pursue?
John Kerry is a Joke!
To what extent do you believe that technology should be used to enforce intellectual property rights?
I'm trying right now to register a *BOUGHT AND PAID FOR* MSDN subscription, thousands of dollars already spent, and I'm quite shocked at how un-helpful MS has been.
The package contains a subscription card with an auth key printed on it, and you're supposed to use an online system to do the registration. Well, apparently, someone else has helped himself to my registration key. So I called Microsoft support. They treated me with a great deal of skepticism, insisting that I snail-mail them my activation card, the BOX TOP with the hologram label, and my invoice from the sale. I realized after mailing that, if it gets lost, intercepted, ignored, or destroyed, then I actually don't have any way to get my money back or to get satisfaction -- since I've already sent all the proof of purchase, together with much more personal information than I would have chosen to provide otherwise.
All this, while someone enjoys *my* subscription without being treated like a thief. I should not be the one suffering consequences.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Hypothetically, let's assume some one has committed a crime involving the illegal aquisition or distribution of some object under copyright, how then do you determine the damage caused by these actions? Perhaps the most common IP infringement is the trading of music files through P2P. How do you determine the value of these suppossed damages if there are no logs indicating the number of times a song has been uploaded/downloaded?
It seems to me that it is awfully hard to prove how much an individual deed has hurt the IP owners.
Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
You need to understand that the starting point of the entire IP legal regime (a starting point that derives from Constitutional principles) is that the IP laws should stimulate innovation in order to ultimately benefit the general public. In this sense, the exclusivity granted to patent holders and copyright owners and trademark/trade secret owners by law, is supposed to provide an incentive for people to pursue innovation. If the system is working correctly, the innovator will undertake the innovative project in order to realize its commercial value (a value that is temporary, since most (if not all) IP rights expire with time). To the extent that the public benefits during the period while the innovator has exclusive rights, great. But the real benefit to the public comes when the original author's IP rights expire and the innovation is released into the public domain. If you keep this in mind, you will see the general public's vested interest in maintaining the appropriate value for IP. Since there is a public interest at stake, the consequences of violating that public interest are criminal (just the same as the public's interest in maintaining speed limits, or building safety codes, etc.)
Now, please be aware that I am not arguing that the current IP legal regime in the USA is doing a good job of balancing the public's interests with those of the IP authors. The key variables are how long the author gets exclusive rights and which rights are exclusive. I suspect that getting the right balance is an ever-evolving process, and one that requires the public's participation to maintain properly, as with any other public policy issue. But, in the meantime, since there is a public policy in keeping the value of IP innovation, the consequences of depriving that value is criminal--at least where the deprivation is intentional.
How can you acuse one of theft if they never intended to buy a file they downloaded for free? If a person downloads a file of which they are completely ambivalent to in terms of buying or downloading how does this become theft?
Say I download a Britney Spears mp3 that I never would have bought regardless of price but because she is the greatest entertainer who has ever walked the earth I downloaded the mp3 just to have a listen and then forgot about it on my harddrive. How does this constitute theft?
Software companies have always factored in their loses with overly inflated numbers of lost sales which include monies from sales they would have never had. Just because so and so downloads a program doesn't mean they would have bought it. When you have programs that are $1000's of dollars then it's obviously prohibative for the average person to buy so they might download it to try it out.
What I'm getting at is how can a company over inflate loses to "piracy" and I use that term loosely and convince you of the same? Who's fooling who?
How is it theft when someone downloads an mp3 that is unattainable by any legal means? If one cannot find the song/cd because it is not longer released or available online or by any other means then how is it theft. Yes it might be copyrighted but if someone wants it and has no other means of which to purchase it then why isn't it legal to download it?
You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
Part 1 of 2)
We always hear about the big corporations and recording Industry giants being victims, can you tell us about any little guys ( individuals or companies with fewer than 50 employees ) that your group have investigated, assisted, worked with that have been victims?
Part 2 of 2)
Is there a threshhold that has to be met before your company will investigate?
...but in this case, the Constitution specifically states that the public has an interest in the development and stimulation of intellectual property.
Do you own an MP3 player (or some other hardware dedicated to the playback of digital audio)?
If so, where do you get your digital music from?
How does the government justify essentially allowing Software and Media companies to serve as an enforcement arm for IP law? With corporate protection groups like the BSA levying fines against people who seem to have no legal recourse, the RIAA and MPAA leveling lawsuits against people who are unable to financially defense themselves EVEN when they are innocent, do you feel that your purpose as a government agency is somewhat superfluous?
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I would like to ask what would be the thing in IP laws that makes a lot of problems to you or which you consider the most flawed and basically, which parts of the current law you disagree with or would like to change?
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, S
If they didn't want it taped, they shouldn't have broadcasted it ;) seriously, that sounds like they want to have their cake and eat it too. If they want to sell a show on DVD they can. If they release it and the laws say it can be recorded for personal use, then we can do that. *sigh* where did the days go when a company could make it on the merits of its good product, not on whether they can buy the laws needed to prop up a dying market. [ed. don't take any of this seriously if you value your sanity.]
Nope nope,
Should be.."Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA"
Watch the movie 10,000 times, listen to what he actually says
Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
"
When you signed your contract with Lucifer, did you actually have to sign in blood or is that just a myth?
-- Will program for bandwidth
Part 1 of 3)
Can you tell us what measure(s) your groups uses to determine if something can legally be distributed (Older than Mickey Mouse {Since Congress will continue to extend Copy Right limits forever to keep Mickey Locked up}, or Explictly released under a license that allows redistribution or entered into the public domain.)
Part 2 of 3)
If any of us expect or come to know that any of our IP is being illegally distributed or used, can we add it to your list? If so, how?
Part 3 of 3)
If Someone would like to check if it's legal to access or use some product, are their any steps which they can take to IMPROVE their odds of being legal?
What can be done to ensure that anti-piracy efforts have no adverse effect on legitimate network traffic?
Can sufficient enforcement be done by simply targetting "blatant" infringers who advertise copyrighted material they do not have right for as being available for download by stranger? Or will filters be required to flag "suspect" transfers, and then follow up with a demand for proof that you had the right to transfer that data? For example: How do you differentiate between someone giving away somebody else's music, and somebody transferring their own copies from their home to the laptop while they are on the road?
Are data transfers entitled to a presumption of innocence?
How many cases has your office, on average, prosecuted per year?
How long does the average case take to prosecute?
How many attorneys are assigned to a case?
How many successful convictions has your office had? And where can we find more information about these?
What was the average sentence/fine for these convictions?
For your cases, what is the demographic makeup of the defendants? (age, race, education, etc.)
How many cases are referred to your office per year?
How many of those cases do you prosecute?
Of the cases sent to your office, how many involve defendants overseas and how many are domestic?
For the overseas cases, how many result in prosecutions? And how do you pursue overseas defendants, especially in countries without extradition treaties with the US?
What is the annual budget for your office? Is the budget adequate for your task? If not, what would be an adequate budget?
Does your office rely on expert witnesses and computer security/forensics consultants outside of the DoJ, within the DoJ or both to assist with prosecuting computer related cases?
What sort of expertise do these experts have?
Python
- An example of a case in the gray area where an individual stole IP from a corporation.
- An example of a case where the IP was owned by an individual.
- An example of a case where one corporation took IP from another, but it wasn't clear whether it was legal.
- An example where the defendant claimed what they were doing was "fair use" and you were surprised that the judge found in favor of the defendant.
- An example where the defendant claimed what they were doing was "fair use" and you were surprised that the judge found in favor of the prosecution.
Thanks.--- Jason Olshefsky
Karma: Poser (mostly affected by adding this line long after everyone else did)
Is this documented somewhere so that other organizations can draw from this experierence for their own benefit?
Python
Is it proper to "Intellectual Property" as a term, given that copyrights and patents aren't really a property right (but only incentives to creation), and are meant to ultimately expire for the benefit of the public? Doesn't this term just encourage copyright/patent holders to believe these rights should persist forever?
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
Joe walks into a store.
Joe steals a lof of bread.
That store is now short one loaf of bread and has lost actual revenue.
-Electronic Theft-
Joe copy a piece of software.
The company has not actually lost anything except the *potential* sale of that software to me
Assuming Joe could never have afforded the software in the first place, and never woul dhave bought it, the company has lost absolutely nothing.
If someone found a way to copy bread, they'd probably be given a nobel peace prize for solving world hunger... I understand that there is a difference between bread and food, but does law recognize the difference between losing actual revenue and potential revenue? We're entering an era where you can give something to someone without losing posession of it yourself, do you think laws should be modified to accurately reflect this?
Am I next?
It is a known fact that some 'most favored trading nations' are abusing US corporations IP rights (copying manufacturing masters without permission or compensation for example). This is present in the software industry as well as other industries. Are there any plans to address these infractions, and is so, what are they? How effective do you think that these actions will be? Are there any planned responses shuold these measures fail?
-Physical Theft-
Joe walks into a store.
Joe steals a lof of bread.
That store is now short one loaf of bread
and has lost actual revenue.
-Electronic Theft-
Joe copy a piece of software.
The company has not actually lost anything
except the *potential* sale of that software to Joe
Assuming Joe could never have afforded the software in the first place, and never would have bought it, the company has lost absolutely nothing.
If someone found a way to copy bread, they'd probably be given a nobel peace prize for solving world hunger...
I understand that there is a difference between bread and food, but does law recognize the difference between losing actual revenue and potential revenue? We're entering an era where you can give something to someone without losing posession of it yourself, do you think laws should be modified to accurately reflect this?
SCO is (or was some time ago) distributing the Linux source, while not agreeing the license (GPL). Are you investigating this case?
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Do you see the AP/IP Lawyers playing the traditional role of going after the illegal distributors as they did in the early 90's (Example1: Video stores renting illegal copies of movies. Example2: Individuals who illegally copied software onto floppy disks and gave them to everyone at the local computer club) Or do you see the department expanding into action against individuals knowingly receiving illegal/unlicensed IP? If the latter is the case do you see any significant legal hurdles left for the courts to address that the DOJ/US attorneys office will have to overcome?
The truth suffers more from convictions than from lies.
Can you explain the constitutionality of prosecuting someone based on what files their computer contains? How can you prove that they've actually stolen the data and haven't uploaded it from their own cds or from having acquired the mp3s/files in some legal way? There seem to be some pretty apparent 4th amendment issues here.
In order to properly present a case you need to refer to certain evidence such as, in the case of P2P piracy, computer files containing music (MP3s). This evidence, as far as I know, is still required to satisfy rules for the chain of evidence in how it was collected and handled. In several cases reported through the media, the stories have indicated that the RIAA or their agents have collected this evidence directly. Computer files can be easily reproduced or altered.
These files can not be validated since they can be easily forged or altered in their computerized format, and the injured party is actually handling this evidence, so how could this type of evidence past muster ? File names and sizes do not necessarily indicate content, so without the critical evidence of the violation (the actual file), how is it that any of these cases can be fairly brought to trial ? How would the rules for handling this evidence impact the small copyright holders - if I find a potential violation, can I just collect evidence myself and try to admit it in court ?
Thanks for helping to all of get the rules straight so that we can better follow them.
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
How do you feel at the end of the day knowing that your job is just another misfunded beaurocracy that will probably make less of a dent in the problem than the D.E.A. does in theirs? Does it make a difference that taxpayers like myself are tired of being caterwauled into acceptance of our monies being spent on more programs like these? Did you ever want to have a real job and a real life?
I guess that about sums up my interest in any propaganda that will eventually appear in the stead of this preliminary article.
(so call me a cynic)
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Have you actually seen your web page.p manual/ 08ipma.htm#VIII.C.2. is a mess!!! Are you guys so strapped for cash/time that you can't get someone to lay it out properly. Yeesh!
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/i
I recall reading that "fair use" was a very subjective thing, very up for interpretation by the judge. So, the fact that it seems vague is intentional.
I imagine that we will see more reasonable judgements on technological issues when the people deciding them have grown up with these issues. Remember, judges are usually fairly old people who did not work in the computer industry or grow up with a computer.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Basically, if you sent the contract back with changes you would be making a counteroffer and not contract would have been formed. Contract = offer + acceptance.
And if so, can you provide examples? what about bad applications of the law?
Obviously the folks in this forum will answer that in only one way (unless they forget their tags) - although their specific examples may vary.
Because most of my understanding of how prosecutors work is based upon what I see on TV ("documentaries" such as "Law and Order" etc). I get the impression that laws are the tools you use to solve "problems" brought to your attention.
In the computer programming world, sometimes the customer requires the use of certain tools that may not be the best choice for the task at hand. Sometimes we can convince them to go with a technically superior solution, and sometimes we may have to lay in an extra large supply of aspirin and antacid and do it the way they insist. Generally (in the computer programming world), this does not have to involve major ethical issues.
Have you ever had a complaint brought where there was pressure to use a specific law where using that law might not really be the best choice? examples if so?
I do not have any specific examples in mind as regards to IP law, but most everyone in the US is aware of how the property seizure portions of the RICO act have been applied in areas far from their "original intent". Are you aware of any instances where any IP laws have been "stretched" to accomodate a complaint - andonce again can you give examples?
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
Are underage people be responsible for the terms of End Users License Agreements? If they are unable to be legally bound by such agreements due to age, then should they be allowed to purchase software?
Can a button which says "Click here if you are over 18" be considered a legel agreement for minors?
Some introductory material first:
Projects like Freenet, GNUnet and IIP are creating decentralized, anonymous Peer-to-Peer networks that can strongly resist censorship by any attacker. I believe that if (when?) these kinds of secure networks replace currently popular networks (FastTrack, IRC, etc) as IP infringement tools, your job of effectively finding, stoping and prosecuting IP infringers will become much, much harder, and will require many more computer resources (perhaps impossibly many resources, both in computing time and in network bandwith).
Now my questions:
For how long do you think mass IP infringement will continue to take place in plain view, rather than on decentralized, anonymous, P2P networks?
If mass IP infringment does move to those kinds of networks, what kind of resources will your office be able to expend to attack those networks?
Would you be allowed to attack those networks at all without violating their user's First Ammendment right to anonymous speech?
What changes to IP law do you think would be needed to address decentralized anonymous networks?
Uhmmm....where are they sending the top 10 rants?
Why is there such a huge disparity between copyright and patents?
In the case of copyright, it seems that most of the income from the subject matter is going to be in the first year or two after it is released.
In a few cases, it may be longer, but over time the amount of money it brings in will usually dwindle to nearly zero or even to zero.
On the other hand, most of the money from patents is going to be in the mid to long term. It seems like many patents expire shortly before or about the time they are starting to become commercially viable.
Yet, patents have a relatively short lifetime and copyrights have a very long lifetime. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Dir sirs,
Intellectual property laws were originally designed with physical replication. In the past, it used to cost the copier money to replicate and disseminate the works in question, now with the digital revolution and the Internet, it can be done with almost zero cost and zero profit to everyone involved. With that in mind, what burdens do you currently have in applying these laws to copyright infringers and how do you plan overcoming these issues?
-Ab
Nothing fails quite like prayer.
Ever thought of inserting a subtle "h" in your acronym to make the public like you more? You could recruit Eric Estrada and ride around on motorcycles with 80's mucis in the background and use cool ID codes like W3 5UK. Seriously, you should consider it.
Buy the President
I suspect most ISPs delete their logs after a relatively short period of time. I know that most of our ISP's logs are deleted after a few days unless there is a compelling reason to save them for longer.
When an ISP receives a subpoena to identify a user at a particular IP address at a particular time, what problems could an ISP have if they no longer have the logs?
Should the ISP maybe keep the logs longer when there is no real need for them?
My guess is that there is no problem. Just say, "We delete those logs after 5 days." or something like that.
What would happen if an ISP shortened the time it kept the logs to reduce the chances it would have to identify a customer? Assume, of course, that the logs were deleted prior to the request, not after.
Would there be any problems with the ISP giving the customer an immediate heads-up that so and so was asking for information about them and providing the information to the requesting entity on the last day of the time to respond?
What if an ISP just quits logging all that information entirely?
Does elaborate copy-protection actually seem to reduce the occurance of unauthorized copying? In the first era of copy-protection, people would actually choose unauthorized copies even when they might have bought the legitimate versions to avoid the copy-protection hassles. Does this still apply? I'd bet there are many people who are running 'Corporate' Windows XP releases because they don't want to futz with activation, even if they would have bought the retail version.
It's just like a fascist dictatorship, without the punctual rail service!
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
I find it very interesting that the DoJ has a special division solely dedicated to protecting the rights of corporations from individuals -- and that the charges are almost always criminal, the individuals are threatened with imprisonment. An individual steals a few tens of thousands of dollars of "intellectual property" and they are threatened with prison terms of 20 years or more.
Yet the division solely dedicated to protecting the rights of individuals from corporations (the FTC), the charges are almost always civil, and the companies almost never admit to any wrongdoing -- they just "settle" without any real consequences, even if they KILL PEOPLE. These corporations price fix, defraud the public, ripoff consumers of BILLIONS of dollars, and commit murder. Yet the individuals responsible for these crimes against the public never face any real threat of fine or prison.
Does this seem moral or ethical to you?
What are your thoughts on the GNU General Public License? Have you dealt with any cases in which the GNU GPL had any bearing, and if so, how did it affect those cases?
On a related note, do you think the GNU GPL or other similar open source licenses are effectively steering us towards or away from commercial, proprietary software? Do you think this is a good thing?
Hi! I've always wondered how do you choose to go after people I mean do you decide hey we're going to go after this guy who's downloading stuff from Newsgroups and Kazaa because he's doesn't want to buy it? or do you tend to focus on people who are selling it out of their trunk in some parking lot for massive profits?
After a long day of chasing those evil, evil software pirates, what do you guys do for fun? Sports, movies, videogames, Hunting for Bambi?
Many people believe that Copyright it self is mostly an amoral construction. In normal decent exchange people get paid for a job done ONCE - whereas in music and movies we see how people get paid over and over and over for the same job. Something which is seen as disgusting and amoral pratice. How do you feel about that?
Do you use public libraries in your work?
Have you ever used a public library outside of work?
Do you guys really read Slashdot??? I mean, officially, from your offices? Or just casually from home???
If a person owns a vinyl record, would downloading (via peer-to-peer filesharing networks) the exact same recording and performance in a digital format be considered "fair use" or would it, instead, be a violation of copyright laws?
And that's the price of representative democracy; however, the recent war over intellectual property shows an important crux point in our current government/governed relationship. The RIAA and MPAA are organizations of intellectual property holders that are using their influence to force out new technologies. In this way, they are acting much like a trust would act. After the recent anti-trust action against Micrsoft, I wonder when action hasn't at least beent tried against these industries. The music industry has already been found guilty of price fixing. Does the DOJ or any other organization have plans to take the MPAA or RIAA to court for their blatant violations of US antitrust law?
Thanks,
James Hare
... I find it extremely hard to believe that your division truthfully represents the "people" of this country. It seems that your job is to help mega-corporations make "examples" out of college students and others who are too poor to defend themselves.
Yes, sharing copyrighted music and films is a crime. However, I see no justification for the insane penalties associated with file sharing and priacy. It seems that companies can make up some absurd figure in the billions, claiming it to be actual damages, without any sort of proof they have really lost that much at all from file sharing.
Can you please enlighten me as to why software and media "pirates" as well as other "computer criminals" are in many cases treated worse than violent criminals who use weapons and rapists?
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Would you support a sequel to the early 90's hit "Don't Copy that Floppy"? I was thinking P Diddy as the man in the monitor, Andy Dick as the teen girl, and myself as the erstwhile youth, torn betwixt good and evil.
-----Buy the ticket, take the ride.-----
How does your organization decide what cases to prosecute?
For example:
A private citizen reports to the DoJ that a poem that they wrote is displayed on a web site without permission.
Walt Disney reports to the DoJ that the another web site is displaying images of Mickey Mouse without permission.
If you only have the manpower to take one of the two cases, do you prosecute the poem copyright infringement on the grounds that the individual is unlikely to have the funds to hire attorneys for a civil prosecution? Or do you prosecute Disney's alleged infringement case and, if so, why?
There were a lot of good questions posted. I don't have time to read them all so if I repeat a previous post in spirit, my apologies.
Intellectual property rights are granted to those who created the work. In the case of work for hire (almost all corporations employ this) IP rights are turned over from creator to employer. Contracts in place this is legally held.
Has there ever been a case where an employee sued for IP rights? What was the verdict?
Has there been a case where IP rights were enforced previous to the creation of a work? Example, employee intends to create work but leaves company and founds own company only to produce that same work (which was never actually created for the original company).
And finally, in the face of the changing landscape of consumer flexibility do you personally feel that corporations are grasping at every straw they can to maintain income flow?
Given that consumers will find ways to use a product to their advantage most digital information providers are trying to "lock" down their creations to ensure income using "prefered" devices. It is unrealistic to think that people will stop using these products in what would be the largest boycott known to date. However, if companies continue to blame the consumers and their tools for damages to income they will eventually find themselves on the receiving end of a very large deficit of income. The question above is meant to garner some idea of how the government agencies feel about corporations using them to ensure a steady (or compensated) financial income as a result of consumer ingenuity.
Most of us believe that corporations should modify their business models to accomodate the changing landscapes of consumerism. It seems that most tend to prefer business as usual and start litigiation any way they can.
So, are corporations using any means possible (legal of course) to simply ensure that they can maintain a financial foothold in spite of consumers finding new ways to utilize, modify, and recreate the corporations IP works?
Keep in mind I'm viewing this from the ages old ideal that "the customer is always right" and slowly learning that "the customer wants what we allow them to have, assuming the pay us huge amounts of money for any misuses". Also, consider my sig for a moment and try to apply that to IP laws...
Rivendahl
... there is nothing that has not already been thought
...ever had to enforce a copyright law you disagree with? If so, how do you feel about that?
Obviously, the IP in question is generally either software and/or other copyrighted works owned by a company, agency, or artist. Since those entities have the most to gain, can you give us a sense of how the DOJ works with the corporations in question? In other words, does the DOJ proactively prosecute violations it detects, or does it generally act on the notification of an alleged victim?
As a related question, I'm aware that many companies now have "enforcement" divisions that try to root out piracy. What role do they play? My guess is that a company like Microsoft has as many or more resources than the DOJ, simply because Microsoft is a $XX billion company, and the DOJ is subject to the whims of Congress. Any comment?
Can you please give a description of the word "piracy"?
In Canada, the copyright board is conducting a review for the addition of DMCA-like clauses to copyright law. The initial stage was a request from the public for papers on the implications of this (as it affects the public at large.)
In the second stage, public meetings were held, and in their notes available before the meetings, they commented about the common (in the submitted papers) misuse of the terms "piracy" and "copyright infringement." Specifically, they spelled out that "copyright infringement" meant someone making unlawful copies, and "piracy" meant someone making unlawful copies for the express motive of selling the copies for profit.
The common use of the word "piracy" by the media lobby groups (and the usage by in the blurb preceeding this interview) implies that this distinction has been lost in the US.
Do you believe that people doing casual copying/file sharing, and large-scale illegal businesses who deliberately break the law for profit should be painted with the same brush?
How much does this actually happen? Are there any figures tracing this kind of criminal re-investment?
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
I've recently read that a fee is added to all sales of media copying hardware (I guess I'm specifically talking about cd/dvd burners here, but apparently it applies to other devices such as VHS recorders and audio tape recorders). This fee represents the known fact that these devices will be used to illegally duplicate copyrighted material; the added fee is distributed between 5 major recording industry publishers to cover their losses.
Is this true? If so, doesn't this mean I would have the legal right to copy published material from any of these companies, since I've already paid my "copying tax"?
The parent post brings up an interesting question:
Are there *any* instances in which the EULA for a licensed product comes into play in your investigation and prosecution?
I would suspect that these guys will say they are not in the business of enforcing EULA's, as those are contracts between private entities, not criminal laws, and therefore in the millieu of the civil court. But I'd love to hear them answer this.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
nm
the GWB, and Asscroft approved revisions to the USC
"revised"
We The Corporations, of the United Corporations of America. You shall turn over your whole paycheck, and we will allow youi to keep what we feel is a good living. aka 15,000 a year.
fucking operntunistic goverment.....
>> What if I interpret that the digital nature of a CD makes it ok to make as many digital copies as I can?
Like any statute, it's the courts' interpretation that counts, not your interpretation. That's the way law works. You can't escape responsibility for your actions by declaring that your personal "interpretation" of the law tells you your actions were legal.
If you want to make a zillion copies of every CD you own, the legality won't be tested until someone else takes you to court. (Of course, you could consider getting an opinion from a lawyer, too, lest you set yourself up for a legal quagmire.)
If you're looking for a simplistic cheatsheet that clearly defines fair use in every possible circumstance, you won't find it.
One more thing: On a few occasions, I've needed to consult an attorney about copyright and fair use issues. Each of those attorneys made this one thing very clear: The nature of the medium that contains the copyrighted information (e.g., a paper book, a plastic CD, a file on a disk, etc.) is almost never relevant to the fair use question. That is, if it isn't fair use to make umpteen copies of the paperback novel you bought yesterday, it isn't fair use to make umpteen copies of the same novel distributed as a PDF file on a CD
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
What is the most oft-repeated IP-law-related fallacy? Which ones make you giggle, and then reach for your court order of death?
In copyright law, 17 USC Section 512(c)(3)(vi) states that all notifications of copyright violations sent to ISPs must contain
(emphasis mine).Do you know of any cases in which the sender of an invalid takedown notice -- such as the RIAA claiming Penn State University Emeritus Professor Peter Usher's lecture on radio-selected quasars was, in fact, an mp3 from the musician Usher -- has been successfully charged with perjury? Or do you allow copyright holders some "fudge factor" with the perjury aspect, since
If copyright holders are allowed leeway, can we expect to see similarly loose definitions of perjury creep into the legal system? If the police are looking for a "Caucasian male, age 50-60, bald, 200-225 pounds," can I testify in a court of law that the 18 year-old caucasian male with a ponytail, weighing 140-150 pounds, is in fact the suspect since he is, after all, a caucasian male?
I realize that's more than one question and that they're slightly loaded, but I'd appreciate any comments on how seriously the DoJ takes the perjury clause of the takedown notices.
Thank you.
-jdm
In the last 20 years there has been a vast change in the amount of information available to the average individual, an increase in the ways that information can be used, and an continual - even accelerating - change in information distribution (since the internet is really in it's infancy.
Do you feel that the current legal basis and defination of fair use for copyrighted works needs to be re-examined at the legislative and/or judicial level?
Please elaborate on why you feel yes or no, and if yes, what (if any) specific issues have you seen develop over the last few years which you feel would benefit from this review?
The distinction between copyright infringement and theft or "piracy" is an important public perception issue. There are no copyright "owners," there are only copyright "holders" who enjoy temporary rights granted by the government. The crime of infringement is more like running a business without a business license than like stealing. While it may cause financial loss, so does arson, price fixing [ahem], and a host of other crimes which we don't mislabel as "theft."
Have any of you guys found my eyepatch? ARGGH!!
Does this mean that DoJ ethics rules prevent them from acting in a way most other lawyers consider ethical?
Can I be put in jail for being a smart-ass?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
A community seperate from mp3s has come out of the availability of high-compression tolerable-quality video compression, sharing movies and the like. Protocols like BitTorrent make sharing these far quicker and easier than in the past. Now, I don't condone nor participate in sharing movies that are already available for purchase at my local DVD outlet. What about the fan-translation culture in the world, including the USA? The community of American distribution companies have acknowledged the existence of Fan-subs, and are perfectly fine with them. The reason being that many fans of Japanese animation ("Anime") were introduced to the medium thru such media (tho, in the past, were poor VHS subs using an Amiga). The fans are left alone so long as they follow ethical responsibilties. The most clear of these are 1) that any fan-translated works (effectivly would be classified as either a derived work, or outright copying) are to cease being distributed once a company in their own country has obtained the official "rights" to the content and 2) once the content is available domestically thru said company, individuals that downloaded the fansubs are to purchase the official copy, if they do not already have a copy of their own from the country of origin (say, Japan). so-called "Singapore" discs do not count as authentic.
So, my questions:
- Where does the US stand on this already established market that can actually seed demand from fan-distributions?
- For protocols such as BitTorrent, where downloaders serve as servers of the file because it is required by the protocol, are such users that run server/clients as liable as the content's original "seed" server? How does that work?
- What about "Singapore" discs? They are distributed in the US containing content copyrighted in other nations, similarly to such digi-subs. Sometimes, the content is taken from the US. Is this any different?
Thanks.
just another AC
Who decides how many people and other resources the DOJ devotes to a particular task (such as IP enforcement), and what process do they use to make that decision?
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
1) The DoJ have been given a number of legislative tools to attack "pirates" (DMCA, USA PATRIOT Act, etc). Yet there is more, not less piracy than 5 years ago.
Given that in those parts of the world where 90% of all people live where copyrights are all but not enforced, and we share a network with them, how long until you can show a 25% reduction in piracy, measured anyway you like, domestically or internationally? I think it is important to enforce copyrights, but criminal law is a retarded place to do it.
2) Do you think your mission or approach would change with a different AG? How is the environment different than under Reno?
-kwy
With 40 attorneys in the stable, some of you must have children. Have any of you parents found your kids had downloaded copyrighted material? What did you say/how did you explain/and did they roll their eyes and sigh, or did they adopt your position and never, ever do it again? I ask partially because of a introductary class I teach at a college. Among other things, we touch on copyright. I knew I have to find a better approach the day a CS major came to me after the copyright lecture and, with a completely straight face, described the 40 episodes of a particularly popular TV show available on her dorm room's network. This is a 20-year-old, intelligent,curious human being, and the lecture did not make a dent (perhaps it was because of the lecturer :)
It is hard to convey the concept of IP and have people agree with it to the point that they do not download copyrighted material. Perhaps one of you has mastered a technique and can tell us how to get it to pass the "kid test", AKA "common sense".
What good are anti-piracy lawyers without much sympathy for people who created copyrighted works all day? Or, less tongue-in-check, what are the DoJ's plans for protecting content-producing individuals against multi-nationals and industry organizations that might want to profit from those works without compensating the individuals?
Current laws seem to be written to only deal with current technology, such as mechanical and electronic reproduction and distribution. Future technology may obsolete current laws, which will start yet another cycle of lawsuits and debates.
For example, if genetically engineered parrots are taught stories that they can repeat, then they are sold, we would have a non-mechanical, non-electronic, for profit distribution of IP.
If current law doesn't cover that senario, should future laws be written to deal with unforseeable advances?
Can you explain the differences and similarities between copyright infringement and other IP violations and theft from legal and enforcement perspectives?
People copy video tapes, record songs off the radio, create mixed tapes etc
Of the three items you cite, ONE is illegal. Copying videotapes (you might have the right to do this for archival purposes for tapes you own) and distributing them is legal.
RECORDING AUDIO OFF THE RADIO IS EXPLICITLY LEGAL under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992.
Got that cite from a RIAA spokeslawyer posting.
Swapping audio tapes is legal.
What is illegal is swapping digital copies of commercial audio, even if they are only broadcast quality.
The reason for this is that the AHRA cited above was purchased from politicians explicitly to make digital recording of commercial content illegal.
Analog taping is "fair use". Digital recording is "EVIL ILLEGAL PIRACY".
Tech Public Policy stuff
Piracy is just preparing us all for what is to come in the next decade. Nanotechnology is all but going to destroy the money system, as well as every form of government - making every 'material' thing FREE.
It's going to happen and it can't be stopped. True equality is finally coming...and it's definitely something to rejoice over.
Is it professionally satisfying to per^H^Hrosecute individuals when in all probability the current corporate IP regime is doomed? Simply put - long term it doesn't matter that people pirate corporate content. When the technology is in place that allows the corporations the degree of control they desire it will suffer from a combination of hacking and rejection. It's a dead-end job, Jack, morally speaking anyway. Go for something meaningful like protecting and expanding our civil liberties, put some brakes on the current fascist juggernaut.
When was it in your lives that you decided to become evil? Did you try out being a good guy and get tired of it? Or did you figure it out when you were young "Hey, I'm evil!" ?
As an aspiring lawyer, I'm just curious.
Not that anyone would call this posting on
If, during the course of raiding this file site and downloading potential evidence of infringment, the RIAA or their assigns commits an act of downloading and storing the copyrighted material of a private individual or company, are they not committing an act of infringement ? Would they not be liable for the same penalties that a private citizen (~voter) would face for committing the same act ? Would it matter who owns the material - the user being raided or another 3rd party ? Assuming that the RIAA is held to the same or similar standards, do you as a lawyer and officer of the court have an obligation to report the incident ?
Is there a sort of double standard applied here ?
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
First, thank you doing this interview. Most people here take IP very seriously and want laws and law enforcement that does what the Constitution intended.
Contrary to what many lay-people believe, open source software relies (heavily) on copyright and the legal system that assures those rights. In fact, among Slashdot readers are a large number of people who own copyrights to open source software. My question is what services your organization offers in practice to "real people". Our community creates software whose quality competes with that of multi-billion dollar corporations, so we clearly have a significant interest in having our own rights as authors protected. We all have no doubt that if Jack Valenti finds a website selling pirated versions of his movies that law enforcement will descend upon the infringer with a fury comparable to that weilded against drug smugglers and violent criminals.
Few among us would really object to enforcing the law against such a clear violation, however, I cannot help but wonder if there is equity in the system. I wonder whether an individual author's rights as a copyright owner would be similary protected? For example, if substantial quantities of code that one of us has written ends up in a company's product in a way that clearly violates the terms of an open source licence, how would the infringed copyright holder go about seeking your services?
What policy governs your decision whether or not to act on behalf of a copyright owner when a complaint is raised? What assures that the heavy hand of the law protects an individual's rights with the same fury that it defends those of the RIAA or a major software corporation?
As a federal agency, your primary responsibility is to serve the citizens of the United States. One of my observations has been that the only "people" that can seem to really make copyright work for them are large corporations or orginizations that can have multipile lawyers on their payroll.
This (at least) creates the appearance that the laws (and their enforcement) are slanted and applied in a manner unfair to the "little guy." While this may not be true, what policies, proceedures, and processes do you employ to ensure fair and impartial enforcement?
Related Bonus Question:
If John Q. Public has a worthy complaint will his issue recieve the same consideration as one comming from the RIAA? How should one approach you with a complaint regarding an IP violation?
I recently purchased the new computer game "Warcraft 3 : The Frozen Throne". This game was available in pirated form on the internet before it was available in stores. I was extremely annoyed that people out there were illegally enjoying this game for free ahead of time while I had to wait. With that said, I am often annoyed at copy protection. I can see the benefits of copy protection (stopping some computer newbies from copying software illegally) but I also feel that people do have an ethical right to make backup copies of their own softweare, and I don't care how bad software piracy gets, I don't think this right ever ceases to exist. Now, whether consumers have a legal right is my question to you. I have heard rumors that there are fair use laws which say that consumers have certain rights to make personal backups, but I am sure corporations are trying to take these rights away, if they have not already.
Therefore, my question is: do consumers have a legal right to make backup copies of their own software?
If so, why is copy protection legal?
Do you have any attorneys in the Department focusing on user rights, as opposed to property owner rights? (When I think about IPR issues, I think not only of ownership Rights, but also of the Right of Fair Use.)
In other words, will the DOJ step in to enforce the Right of Fair Use if it is being infringed? If this seems too hypothetical, has there every been any such enforcement, and if not, why not?
Thank you for answering questions in this forum.
Intellectual Property law has historically been civil Law. Only recently has it been a matter of criminal law. Historically, copyright enforcement has been the sole responsibility of the copyright holder, and now taxpayers are responsible to bear the burden of protecting private (intellectual) property. Given that most people believe that the private sector has failed to effectively enforce its copyrights in the wake of digital media, how can you assure conservative taxpayers that we are not throwing good money after bad? What can you do that the private sector (independant programmers, big and small software development shops, and BSA type organizations) could not?
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
One requires one or more of us to go to most members of Congress, either in person or via lobbyist with a few million dollars in campaign donations.
If Napster had spent $5M on Congresscritters instead of lawyers, Fritz "Hollywood" Hollings would be Fritz "Napster" Hollings, and we'd be enjoying Napster today.
The other is start a PAC along the lines of the NRA and AARP starting with a megabuck or so up front to set up the organizational infrastructure.It raises money from us in $5 and $20 and $100 chunks, it disburses in $5000 and $10000 and $100K chunks. They call us to deluge our congresscritters with faxes via mailing list, we do this.
Problem with this is that this needed to have been done a year ago. A lot more money might compensate for the lack of time we have before the 2004 elections... (filing election committee in 50 states and with the Feds takes time and money) but nobody with the money came forward when this should have been done and nobody with the money will do this NOW at the last possible minute.
The answer to your question is. . . got a spare megabuck or three you're willing to personally put into solving the problem? No? Sorry, you don't have the bucks to be effective in politics. Your individual vote doesn't matter even if it is counted honestly.
This problem is NOT going to be fixed and innovations in consumer electronics will be developed outside the USA from now on.
Tech Public Policy stuff
I'm disappointed that such a prominent example of software piracy is not being prosecuted.
Why not?
For the entire history of the United States, it has been considered vital to maintain public libraries where everyone has free or nearly free access to books, journals, newspapers, and more recently, music and movies. With the exception of academic journals, publishers do not seem to have the right to extract fees from libraries beyond the initial cost of the book or CD or DVD, even though every person who goes into a library and reads or listens or watches represents, to the publisher, lost revenue.
Where, exactly, is the dividing line between an activity that is lionized as necessary to a healthy society (maintaining a good public library system) and an activity that is demonized as theft (maintaining a peer-to-peer file sharing system)? Isn't the end result largely the same -- the free dissemination of information to those unable or unwilling to pay for it? Should I not lend books and CDs to my friends? If I lend a CD to a friend, I understand that he is probably not allowed to rip MP3s from it, but am I still allowed to listen to the MP3s that I ripped from it?
It seems to me that there is really no effort being made at maintaining a proper balance between the rights of copyright holders, and the information needs of society. Unfortunately, this argument is being made over music where the downloaders are not perceived as having a real need -- but won't the legal precedents being set for music sharing apply to book and article sharing? Might not the type of requests made by the RIAA for names for file sharers be used to intimidate people distributing important political information (such as against whistleblowers, or people speaking out against the government?)
Given that the only difference between "fair usage" and illegal piracy as defined in the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 and the DMCA is that it's OK to make audio tapes off the radio and even swap them, but making digital recordings of the same information and swapping them as files is a violation of Federal law, how do you personally rationalize trying to put people in jail over this kind of trivial difference?
Tech Public Policy stuff
Still on the home front, do you have discussions with your teenage kids about software piracy, and if so, do they agree with you?
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
I think that they hover somewhere around a GS-14. As to salary, their milage may vary, but here's the thing. They're all talented lawyers, and DOJ is prestigeous. That means that they could easy make 3 times as much working for a private law firm, but they want to work for government. Motives might include fewer hours, more interesting work, or more control over their lives. But bear in mind, these people may be making $150k working for government when they could be making $350k working in a big law firm.
In fact, one of them just left to work for a content lobby group (not the RIAA).
Do you believe copyright holders should be allowed to legally require suspected violators' personal information from their ISPs without a judge's approval? In the light of this law, do you believe the private industry has more power to conduct their own law enforcement activities than the DOJ?
As a legitimate consumer of both computer games and music CDs, I am constantly frustrated when various copyright devices infringe on my right to enjoy the product I have purchased (for example, computer games that use SafeDisc to ensure I'm not using a copied CD). If a company chooses not to employ such measures, can it still legally legally targeting offenders in court, despite the fact that the company does not implement such security measures for the good of its own consumers.
personal use == scholarship ? Quote :
"Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors";
Who should I call at your office when someone pirates my GPL-licensed software by using it in his product but not distributing the source code?
Going a bit more in-depth, I'd rather ask:
Software, music and movies have the least consumer proection on them out of all products sold. Not coincidentally in my opinion, these seem to be the most pirated works.
Has it crossed your mind to strengthen OUR rights while trying to protect their IP? I currently have no way to sample a movie, or a game.
Game demos are purposely misleading, and a trailer doesn't show me anything I care about a movie.
Yet, I can only return an opened piece of software for another copy of the same piece of software. (despite the fact that the click-wrap EULA doesn't allow me to get my money back if said software doesn't even work on my machine because of it being incomplete, or whatnot.)
Most of the people I know that will download a full copy of game before buying do so because there's no other way to determine if said game is worth their $50. If they do like the game they will go out and buy it.
The simple fact of the matter is that we, as consumers don't feel that we have nearly as many rights as consumers of other products, and the ones we have are dwindling fast. So what are you going to do to protect us, the people who keep the companies in business?
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
Ouch. Guess I shouldn't have left the subject intact. I thought it was funny. Didn't mean to offend.
As more material is migrated from analog sources to digital formats, and as new material is created only as a digital entity, how do you see our history and knowledge being protected in a format that is both fair to the copyright holders and useful to the consumers? How will it remain useable in the future?
My concern here is that the current push to require DRM support in hardware seems to be focused on securing the right of profitability for the copyright holder of a given work. What legal protection does an author have to ensure that this work also becomes accessible when that copyright expires?
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but under current US law (DMCA), is it not illegal to remove the content from a DRM container, even if it is simply to transfer it to a different DRM container? If this is true, then archiving an existing work from one media to another becomes impossible. That, in turn, implies that any digital work which falls out of publication will be lost when existing copies become damaged, or are made obsolete. Are there any provisions for a legal way to transfer DRM-protected works to a non-DRM (or "empty password" accessible DRM) container once they enter public domain?
Should I forced to sit through them, as "payment" for watching the rest of the show?
FUCK NO
What are you, some kind of media-empire-ass-whipped ninny? Grow a sack of balls man.
Let's be realistic, at what point did you become a customer of NBC to purchase their TV programming?
Oh wait, that's right, you didn't. It came out of the air (or from your cable provider), and you bought equipment that lets you decode it.
Meanwhile, all the broadcasting companies are paying the bills by making arrangements with Nelson and the ad agencies. AT NO POINT IS ANY AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEWER EVEN IN THE PICTURE.
The ad companies trust the ratings company. The consumer is only in the loop in as much as you agree to take surveys. There's no wording even on the survey that you agree to not lie (that I've ever seen).
So when a media giant gets pissed that you are purposefully removing ads from what you watch, you can tell them to tell their ad agency that those numbers they presented are tainted by a loss of eyeballs do to ad removal, and that they should scale pay appropriately. I bet they LOVE that but there's nothing they can do to you about it, and it's THE MEDIA GIANT'S PROBLEM TO SOLVE, not yours. They overpromise, they can't hold you responsible, you never promised them anything!!!!!!!!!!
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
TPF
How big is your MP3 collection?
If a person knew of a multi-billion dollar company making hundreds, or perhaps thousands of clear, willful IP rights infringements, how would that person go about presenting these concerns to the copyright holder? I ask this in relation to qui tam cases -- is there any such financial consideration given to the whistleblower in cases where U.S. Government funds are not involved (although the company DOES receive federal money, as most multibillion$ companies do), or is it "merely one's civic duty" to report this type of abuse?
From what I've read and seen, the DoJ has taken a fairly clear position that the way the corporate world is using the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA is within the bounds of the Copyright Act. While I haven't read the legislative history, I don't think this type of corporate action is what Congress intended.
The DMCA leaves very little room for the concept of "fair use" (at least as it is written in the Copyright Act and as the First Amendment applies to it).
My question is: will there ever come a time when scholars can present their research under the rubric of fair use without the fear of DMCA reprecussions?
As a follow up: how can the DoJ ensure fair and just administration of DMCA enforcement and how far will the DoJ's "long arm" reach in order to prosecute?
-Anthony
If you represent a legal interest and also represent a conflicting legal interest, this is called "conflict of interest," and you are required by strict ethics to drop one of the conflicting interests. Failure to do so is pretty much racketeering.
Free software developers don't pay for DoJ or law-enforcement lobbying. So when a big software company claims the free software infringes on a patent, the DoJ will come in like the A-Team and break stuff like a bunch of crazed chimpanzees. If the big software company has to enforce its own IP rights, then the thuggery is much more difficult. Basically this is like giving Uzi submachine guns and riot suits to the BSA.
The only way certain corporations can get out from under the economic pressure caused by free software is to somehow "make people pay." The strategy is to transfer as much of their operations to tax-funded agencies as possible, and pay 10% of the operational cost to lobbying to support keeping it taxed/funded by legislators.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
I'd like to ask the IP lawyers what criteria they use to recognize fair use. I assume that when deciding whether to prosecute a case, they try to estimate whether it's likely to result in a conviction.
But how do the lawyers tell the difference between criminal copyright infringement and lawful fair use? Are there a set of guidelines that they follow, or does it just depend on the individual lawyer's judgement, or that of the judge and the jury?
Yeah, and it lines them up for job in private industry when they leave. Oh, and you didn't mention the kickbacks and connections did you?
1) When we hear about criminal and civil cases against individuals or corporations for violations of copyright and IP statutes, a key element of proof is revenue/profit made by the defendent(s) because of those violations. What other forms of evidence are used when the defendent makes no profit from the infringement?
2) Trademarks are a common form of IP. Recently, the courts ruled that Victor's Secret was not in violation of trademark infringement because its similarity was ruled not significant enough to cause damage to Victoria's Secret. How does that decision impact the current interpretation of IP laws?
Given that copyright law protects not information, but the form in which it is presented, is it legally feasible for an individual to copyright their name and address? Since every email address, for instance, is unqiue, does copyright not already exist by default? And if a corporation violated this theoretical copyright by sending a person a mailing without permission to use the copyrighted address, would the DOJ see fit to prosecute this violation?
___________________________________
With the current ease of transmitting encrypted electronic documents, schematics, designs, etc, how has your caseload with regards to corporate espionage and theft of trade secrets been impacted. Isn't this a much more serious threat to U.S. business than any P2P music sharing violations? Can you provide any examples that might aid a network security administrator in monitoring internal traffic for these kinds of violations?
As a copyright holder, I belive that this criminal conspiracy is illegally distributing my intellectual property in violation of the license.
How do I report this matter to the FBI? What steps can I take to ensure that the software pirate enjoys an extended stay in Federal prison?
to the ongoing controversy over the expropriation by the Justice Department in the 1980's of the INSLAW case management software, it's subsequent revision and dispersion to foreign nations such as Israel, and its apparent acquisition by terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden who is reportedly using it to evade capture and manage his financial support of terrorist networks including Al-Qaeda?
This situation has been referred to as "the largest software theft case in history" and therefore is relevant to the prosecution of intellectual property crimes, one would imagine.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
What are some of the things that the DoJ lawyers that are working on this case have done to prevent their own famlies from becoming part of the problem they are now prosecuting people for?
Welcome to the net of 1000 lies. Upgrades are scheduled soon that should bring us to the 10,000 lies mark.
3. First, some background: Many people on Slashdot and in the Open Source and Free Software communities detest the phrase "intellectual property". The argument is that IP is not "property", but a privelege granted to holders for the public benefit. I have always contended that the issue is irrelevant because whether or not IP is a "right" it can still be limited. For example, your right to hold land is limited and can be revoked if you fail to pay property taxes. A similar argument revolves around the term "piracy" and "theft" in relation to IP.
Dude, what are you SMOKING?
The "Free Software" communities are extremely sensitive about intellectual property. In particular, attribution could be described as one of the cornerstones of open-source morality. The communities take great care in protecting IP and flushing out IP issues. The communities see IP as more than a commercial tool, they see IP as authorship and respected boundaries of innovation.
That was a bizarre leading question dude... But I quite enjoyed the jedi-mind trick that you employed afterwards...
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
Why would they lie? They have no reason to, other than perhaps being emberassed about going after 18 year old kids in dorm rooms.
It always amuses me, this "common consensus effect". Always perceive others as you believe you are perceived... Always attribute to others what you believe should be attributed to you...
Let me make my point dead on: Regardless of what you say, how can we trust you? There's an inherent conflict of interest in the question. If you say you don't spread FUD and play memetic psych games at all, would we belevie that? Would you reveal your employer?
My apologies for implying that you are looking for tactical information to commit memetic crimes.
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
My question concerning Federal enforcement of IP (basically digital copyright infringement in this context) is this: Does the CCIPS have a mandate to enforce all copyright infringement allegations, be they by personal copyright holders or by major corporate entitites? As a followup, does the CCIPS do so, or is more attention paid to the complaints of corporate entities as a matter of course?
OK, the question I'd like answered is ' where does your remit stop? ' usa only? internationally? or where? , and how do you define where a server/client is. (very simplistically) in the E.U. when we enter into a contract we can choose which (european) states' law should apply to a contract. how would this affect your work?
If a person purchases a video game, and in the EULA of said game there is a specific phrase detailing that they are permitted to make one copy "...for backup and archival purposes, provided that the original and copy of the software are kept in your possession.", where do the rights of the end user stand when the aforementioned game is copy protected in such a manner that they CANNOT exercise this portion of the agreement? Second question... If a person purchases a game, and then cannot get it to work on their computer and must use a 'crack' or program to make the game function without the built in copy proection from working, is this second program - the 'crack' or 'No-CD Patch' illegal? Is distribution of said file illegal because of the DMCA or does the end user's rights allow for the obtaining of this program so they may use what they lawfully purchased?
In the current legal landscape, discovering and disclosing a security-related flaw seems to be calling for a conversation in your custody: Even academics may often be in doubt if they qualify as bona fide security researchers when facing daunting issues that could constitute, inter alia, violations of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions and possibly trade secret law.
Keeping the story quiet (i.e. avoiding awareness even if the rightholders are informed) in these cases is likely to result in bugs remaining unfixed for a considerable time, even if the code is running mission-critical systems. The next person to discover the vulnerability, however, may be some "Osama Bin Haqor" exploiting it to shut down or otherwise sabotage the information infrastructures of this nation and its allies.
If Full Disclosure is not an option (or is it) as legislation stands today, what is your advice for people who learn about relevant weaknesses and want to speak up in time but without getting into trouble with the law?
It is in fact a weak premise to suggest that IP penalties have been stiffer than violent crime penalties without providing examples ... but is this assumption linked in any to the heavy hand of the law in meeting out years of jail sentence punishments to poorer people while letting corporate criminals and even federal criminals off without even year of jail time? I'm not going to provide examples, save to say that you can read about the tougher urban crime laws created in the 70's (for example the Rockefeller laws) that have filled our prisons with a certain demographic of our society, and of course spurred a prison building growth that hopes to rival continued coldwar level arms spending.
It would not be surprising to find similar behavior in this area of the law. It is a known fact (re: The Cuckoo's Egg) that FBI investigators will NOT investigate "computer crime" without the reported loss of a significant amount of money (in any area, either IP, network hacking, viruses, etc). While this part of the DoJ being interviewed deals only with the IP part of things, their dept. will NOT investigate cases that do not involve a substantial loss of money.
"Substantial", I believe, is like neal stephenson's "fuck you money", a pricetag subject to the times, probably a lot lower when Cliff Stoll wrote his silly book.
Frank
"Other bands play, but Manowar KILLS"
What is the legal difference between having posession of an MP3 that I copied from a CD I own, versus an MP3 of the same song copied from someone else's CD?
Asked another way, once I own a CD, what is the difference between copying it myself, or copying someone else's copy, so long as I own the CD it is created from.
A more complicated version of this would compare owning the Tape, but copying someone else's MP3 of the same song but from a CD.
asmithnetbox-n-o-s-p-am@yahoo.com (remove -n-o-s-pam)
but the pirates, against which the technology is apparantly targeted, are tech savvy enough to work around such things.
I think you answered your own question. The measures are designed to stop casual pirates. The "casual pirate" is the ordinary home user who pays for some software, but has a few shareware apps that haven't been paid for, and maybe an illegal copy of photoshop (for example). Since these users aren't going to spend hours shopping for "serialz" on the internet, fairly simple protections are good enough. OTOH, most measures are probably not going to be effective against "hard core" pirates.
1. Why do you think my brain is a property of someone but me?
It's easy to find cases where people get light sentences for crimes that, at least to me, seem much more damaging to society than a few swapped files. How do you justify asking for billions of dollars of so-called damages or years of jail time when people who shoplift some CDs receive little if any punishment?
Copyright violations have always had draconian punishments. That's partly because the chance of catching an infringer is low - so the penalty must have a high multiplier to make infringement a losing proposition.
"(Only) An eye for an eye" makes crime a paying business. Rob 10 people of $100. Get caught once and have to give THAT $100 back. Result (ignoring other costs): $1,000 gross income, $100 cost of doing business, $900 profit. But get socked for $3,000 for the time you get caught and it becomes $2,000 loss.
Now look at how many people copy that $19.98 CD for each one caught...
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
How do you perceive successful prosecution of these cases would help an individual or small organization with IP to protect?
That is to say, assuming no contract limiting my rights exists (Note - an EULA fails basic requirements to be a contract), when I buy a CD I buy certain rights to that CD, including the right to play it privately or publically, the right to make a back-up copy, etcetera.
What enforceable rights does the user have today to digital media they have bought. If I bought a CD, and it was stolen, do I still have a license to the IP contained on that CD, or does that transfer with the physical object.
What rights are in fact left to the consumer, explicitly or implicitly?
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
We all know you as the team who are responsible for enforcing copyright law. But presumably some of you must also be consumers of this kind of media.
At what point do you think it is reasonable to put the fine line between enforcing the DMCA and it's cousins, and still allowing fair and reasonable use of media? What's your standpoint on technologies that, for exmple, prevent illegal copying of CDs at the expense of a small percentage of legitimate users who may not be able to play legally purchased CDs on thier PCs?
sig:- (wit >= sarcasm)
The only value of a thing is what you can sell it for. Cost is irrelevant to value except to tell me how much I need to sell it for at a minimum to make a profit. If I create something that no one wants then it has no value. The only value it has to me is how much you want to pay for it. So if you copy something without paying, I obviously lose the opportunity to sell the item to you. I have lost value because I can't now sell you the item. What diference does it make if I still have or have not the thing in question.
Do you complain if the Goverment is required to pay you for taking away some of your quite enjoyment rights when a trainline is run alongside your property. Probably not. I assume this is the case in the USA. In Australia its based on the Constitutional prohibition of state acquisition of property without fair compensation.
Do you complain if stock manipulators rob you of value in shares that you continue to own even if they are now unsellable. Probably yes. This has no basis in the constitution that I know of and is surely a case where contract law could take care of any damage.
OK so copyright and other IP maybe created rights to some extent or at least given enhanced value by the exclusivity associated with them under legislation. But once they are given that value it should be open to any owner to protect that value within the law.
what makes it criminal as opposed to civil?IANAL but as I see it a starting point is it's criminal if the state can penalize you with jail. It's administrative if state penalties are basically fines (though non-payment of fines can be a criminal offence). It's civil if another person can have you penailzed.
The state generally becomes involved if there are public policy issues strong enough to warrant their intervention. This is obviously subject to much political pressure but if the state can get involved in the regulation of commerce then it can choose points at which activities of a particular type constitute so grave an abuse that criminal penalties are imposed. See stock manipulation above.
The problem with much of the IP stuff is that criminal level penalties were meant to be imposed on heavy duty criminals (like the CD bootleggers out of Ukraine or Queens). But the technology now allows ordinary people to do what HDC's only could have done when the laws were passed ie massively copy cd's and movies. From our (ordinary people) POV the penalties are outrageous. From the POV of producers the losses are the same to them if 100,000 ordinary people copy one cd each or 1 HDC copies 1 cd 100,000 times. And the current laws are the only ones they have. The best alternatives offered by the ordinary people are liquidation a difficult thing for any entity to accept.
And the law makers are stuffed because they can't come up with a better solution. Well actually they are stuffed because they are corrupt arseholes but thats a whole 'nother story.
It not totally clear from your post if you understand concepts such as opportunity cost or accept that such a thing exists. Without that then any discussion on Intellectual Property is a waste of time. This is the case with many /. posters.
By dilluting the value of the IP at hand, it allows the public generaly easier access to that IPThat's just saying 'I don't want to pay that much for it'. Drugs is one thing but seriously how is that relevant to music. If you can't afford it you can't have it. If that's the case for 'things' why is it any different for IP.
is it actually effective to do so?
People willfully break a law because they want to do something that happens to be illegal. I believe that they weigh up the risk with the reward in any decision like this. Crimes that are committed and justified with "everyone else is doing it' generally have attached the unspoken disclaimer 'and they aren't
hours? sheesh... you need to bone up on web searching...
If we accept the basic premises that
then is education (part of) the answer to wholesale infringement? If so, who should do the educating, and what should they say?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Several, perhaps many, of the technologies in use and being developed by copyright holders have no impact on the ability to copy content, instead they controll post-acquisition use of legitimately acquired copies. A primary example is the Content Control System used in DVDs, which plays no role in the prevention of replication (you can copy the "encoded" dvd stream without paying any attention to the CCS encoding and then use the illegitimate copy equally with the original, hence it is not a copy control) but does encumber the usage of the original, restricting its use to "approved" players and platforms.
These technologies, which constrain the means used to access the legitimately acquired content, seem to assert and constitute a new "accessright" that copyright holders are asserting (post-distribution) over their customers. In the book-on-paper sense, this is equavilant to selling books that can only be read under "specially crafted red lights" and then perssuring lamp manufacturers and the government to prevent persons from selling "common red lights".
Further, "anti priracy" legislation, such as the DMCA is being drafted and enforced in such a way as to presume the validity of this new "accessright" and punish persons and entities that are preceived to infringe same.
What grounds exist to support the copyright holders assertion of their right to control how a legitimately produced and purchased copy is subsiquently accessed by an individual? Is this different than the existing constraints on commercial use? (e.g. videos have been labeled as "not for comercial performance" etc as a matter of accepted practice and constraint for years.)
The technologies like CCS are, to date, incapable of understanding the different types of use, what precident allows the copyright holder to presume control of the means of use (access), apparently on the grounds of "having provided plenty of means for non-infringing use"?
At what point, if any, is the government planning to protect individual accessright and/or limit this form prior restraint?
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Quite frankly, I've never had any problem "casualy" working around this stuff. Most sharware "protection" is easy to get past, and the CD protections have never hindered me a single bit.
-- Napalm sticks to kids.
not to follow up one's onw post, but I really do know how to spell creation... 8-)
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
As I understand it, theft involves taking an 'thing' that is not owned. So, for example copying a recent book (also protected by copyright law) in its entirety simply violates the copyright. Taking a book from a store without paying for it is theft.
I also think copyright violations are a 'civil' offence, not criminal. This is very distinct from IP law which treats 'know-how' and other knowledge as private property, and hence is covered by criminal law.
Please clarify the above.
Suppose I want to set up a peer-to-peer system for trading legitimate material - maybe not music at all - photo's of people's dogs or something. How should I protect myself from legal action given that I have no real control of the files that others are trading using the system I set up?
www.sjbaker.org
This may not be the best story to post personal accounts like this ;).
Do you believe that existing copyright laws, such as the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, are flawed? If so, have you ever had qualms about enforcing them? Would you ever refuse to enforce a flawed IP law on moral grounds?
...but I think it is pretty common that personal copies must be made from your own copy. That is the exception allowed here, and so anything else is a violation.
I can have 2 identical CDs lying next to eachother, mine and my friend's, but I can legally only make mp3s from one of them even though they are bit-identical. In the same way, getting the music from the Internet would also be illegal.
Your analogy would be on even more shaky ground, since you technically only own the sound captured on the vinyl. If the digital format is of a higher audio quality, you don't have the rights to that extra fidelity. However, you are free to capture the sound from the vinyl in a digital format yourself. Or that's at least the way it works here.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Can you see that in the fullness of time the current approach to copyright might be one of the big miss steps of this century, considering that current copyright law is so clearly out of step with societies expectations. Or is this just your day job?
I want to see this answered, as well. While they may not be doing anything to protect us (they are, after all, only the enforcers), I would like to know who is.
OMG! Wau!
The ideas expressed by this AC are well thought out, and deserve the attention of the slashdot crowd.
Anyone with mod points to burn (and nothing worth modding that hasn't already hit 5), please consider using your points here.
Thank you for you time, and we now return you to your regularly scheduled comments.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, however, there is.
Would you characterize the focus of your work as punishing infringers or stopping infringment? Do you see room for a difference between the two? In a time when it seems the majority of the citizens you represent do not understand or do not agree with some Ip laws (judging by their actions) do you as a group think it more important to punish as many of the infringers as possible, or through warnings to infringers, advertising, and answering the questions of those you represent (like this) raise public awareness and change public opinion?
yeah, good point, I just rip CDs for personal use, and, fortunately for current circumstances, I quit using shareware years ago when I got Linux.
-- Napalm sticks to kids.
Okay, could you guys give some illustrations regarding a hypothetical situation to clarify a few things?
Let's say a person in a country outside the US with, let us say, a fifty year copyright law for all kinds of media including audio and video is using P2P. That person doesn't have any way of knowing the location of the other people connecting to his P2P application, and he is freely sharing thousands of files that would be covered by copyright within the US, but are not in his country because they are all copyrighted before 1953 and have therefore entered the public domain in his country. Some of those files are being downloaded to the US where they would still be under copyright according to that country's (the USA) laws.
The question is whether this would be considered infringement by the DOJ. And if it would, then who is doing the infringing? The server only, the dowloader only or both?
Now if the answer is that the server is considered to be infringing copyright, then why are his ISP's servers exempt?
To summarize, how can you draw the line on common carrier status in an international P2P situation where there are differences in laws.
What do you think of the behaviour of companies that (appear to) see themselves as entitled to enforce the law as they see it?
...".
This is an increasingly common perception of organisations like the RIAA, BSA (ARIA and the BSAA in Australia, where I'm from) - that they are able to "punish" people directly. "The RIAA fined me
Are they actually able in some way to enforce their own "laws", and if so how is this possible?
How to do you view IP violations of commercial companies who are abusing the GPL and other Open Source licenses (eg. bundling binary only software that incorporates Open Source in violation of the license)? Would these be investigated to the same extend as violations of similar scope that involved proprietary code?
I'm asking this because Federal prosecutions often have monetary thresholds attached to them, but this is hard to define in the case of Open Source...
Thx.
Chris.
-- I don't have a cool sig.
...are you using "campaign donations" as a euphamism for bribes or for explosives?
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
I notice a lot of questions about 'is this fair use', 'is downloading stealing' etc. All good questions, however I'd like to see more questions asked of the prosecutors about their day to day business, rather than big, political questions on the morality of this law or that (remember, they're prosecutors, not politicians)....so my question is:
Has there been a point, since your appointment to this department, where you have felt you weren't acting in the best interest of your country and its citizens? And can you elaborate on what the situation was that made you feel that way.
Quoted from the above article:
... the ... enforcement program', what exactly do you mean? And how can the 7million plus filesharers let their voices be heard in this debate? Should we go about electing a board of our own spokesmen and eventually politicians to help change these laws, or are there other ways?
The IP prosecutors in the Section are responsible for establishing and enforcing the Department's overall intellectual property rights enforcement program, including the prosecution of federal intellectual property crimes.
By 'establishing
*end question, begin rant*
It would seem to me that this kind of support for music on the internet shows that people are not happy with the current solutions. Rather than stick with what, we feel, is an outdated model, we feel that content should be free, and that paying artists is our choice. (And something we should do, if we want them to keep making music.)
So far as I interpret law, the government's job is not to protect IP so much as it is to serve the public. If the people demand that IP laws be abolished, they will be abolished. No, this isn't likely at all, but merely an extreme example to point out it's technically possible.
Jeffool.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
And yes, the American Public has been screwed by Congress and the corporations they work for. A "limited time" has been many times. This is theoretically not "unlimited", according to the Supreme Court, but the Copyright protection period (i.e., the period for which a cultural artifact is withheld from the general public) has been increasing much more quickly than time has been passing. Copyright extensions have been putting many of the cultural treasures of society (printed music by Pokoviev and Shostakovitch, for example) back into the hands of greedy heirs and Corporations after having been public domain for a time. And Disney Corp, having comfortably adapted/extended the creations of the Brothers Grimm ("Snow White", etc.) now give big campaign contributions to make sure that NOTHING they have ever created will ever be in the hands of society at large. They benefited, but we're screwed!
Although many of the classic books we now read are available at reasonable cost, and can be lampooned, emulated, or adapted, it appears increasingly likely that NO MOVIE WILL EVER GO PUBLIC DOMAIN. If you don't like this Mickey-Mouse (tm) situation, look to yourselves:WRITE TO YOUR FEDERAL LEGISLATORS. MAKE IT A CAMPAIGN ISSUE. DON'T VISIT DISNEYLAND, AND TELL YOUR NEIGHBORS WHY YOU WON'T GO.
As I understand it, the law targets people who make and distribute unauthorized copies, but copyright holders who complain about "piracy" are usually talking about the people who recieve the copies. So, do you ever find yourself at odds with the copyright holders over what the problem is and how to deal with it?
-- . . ramblin' . . .
Why don't you take your mealy mouthed disclaimers, roll them up, and use them to cluster fuck yourselves up your dissembling asses, you spineless cogs in the beaurocorporate machine?
Lawyers. These fucks are lawyers. I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. Worthless parasites, each and every one of them.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
...of motherfuckers who go up against the war come the revolution grows and grows.
I learn a lot from ripping music, cutting it, slowing it down and transcribing it. As a jazz musician, modern technology has fantastic tools for helping us really get into a soloist's head and learn what he/she is doing. My understanding is that all of this copy protection, "fair use" discussion, and piracy talk would disallow musicians who own the content to actually rip it, and manipulate it in this way. How would you respond to young musicians who are trying to learn music in the best way possible, that they aren't allowed to do so because they don't have the rights to?
The DMCA makes it a criminal offence to "circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work".
Can someone can be sent to prison if they preform circumvention entirely mentally? Say someone circumvents access controls and reads an encrypted book by preforming the decryption calculations in their head? Does the DMCA make it a crime to think those thoughts?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Would it be legal to sue a copyright holder because they included a DRM copy protection scheme on their product which infinges on my fiar use of the product? If I would like to make a back up of the software (usually granted in the EULA) or the music CD (which was bought), or even play a DVD on an OS that they do not support, I must break the DMCA to do so.
On another note: Are they responsible if their DRM destroys a device and or lost data if the meida is played on a device that do not want it played on.
It is with the advent of the Internet that work which is in the public domain can now be made widely available. Despite the (IMHO) excessively long copyright terms, much classical literature and music is in the public domain, and this is added to every year.
Do you see safeguarding the public domain as part of your role?
Dunstan
The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town
You can't escape responsibility for your actions by declaring that your personal "interpretation" of the law tells you your actions were legal.
I know I can't just hide behind the shield of my own interpretation of justice, but I hate when laws are vague. Since you don't know where the boundaries are, you are forced to live cnoservatively and not get all the rights that the law might have been intended to give. If you have a dangerous neighbor who shoots trespasssers, you'd damn well better have a clear fence marking the line between his yard and yours.
If a law is vague enough, it may as well say "whatever the judge decides," and that gives too much legislative power to the judicial branch. I'm not represented by the appointed federal judges in the way that I am by my elected congressfolk, so I'd rather have my direct representatives be very clear about the law than have a conservative-appointed judge "interpret" it.
$8.95/mo web hosting
For the various key employees, I'd like to
see full disclosure of history, whom they
have represented in past, other family members
and relatives in office. I'm sure there is
some standard way of disclosing.
I'd like to feel the DOJ is working for the
public interest, not just the protection of
existing business. This goes to legitimacy.
I don't find the fair use clause vague. It isn't clairvoyant, so it isn't going to tell you that copying 1500 words is fair use, but copying 1501 words is infringement.
Regarding filesharing, I think it is more than obvious that fair use does not include copy hundreds or thousands of copyrighted files and making them available to a global audience.
If laws lent themselves to clear, self-evident binary intrepretation, we wouldn't need judges and juries to interpret the law and rule on guilt and innocence.
If you're involved in something in which copyright and fair use become important issues, then you owe it to yourself to make an effort to understand how the courts have interpreted fair use. If you're doing something that differs dramatically from what has been considered fair use in the past, then common sense will tell you that today's courts are unlikely to consider your actions as fair use.
Certainly, if you have a financial stake involved, find a good copyright lawyer.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Although I realize that 1500 vs. 1501 words isn't very significant, many of our laws draw a clear line. You may not operate a vehicle if your blood alcohol is greater than or equal to .1 (now .8 in some areas). You may not purchase cigarettes if you're under 18; alcohol if you're under 21. These laws don't say "you can't purchase these goods if you're sort of young."
But Fair Use is definitely vague, and after a little research, I found out that congress did that intentionally in order to examine each case individually, since it varies so often. "Lawmakers wanted fair use to remain flexible, so that it would meet changing needs without new legislation every few years."
True, there's no way to argue that you have a right to distribute 15,000 digital copies of a song for which you don't own the copyright. But it's gone so far that CD-R's labeled for Music actually have a few cents of the price going to the recording industry. I can't see how that's fair, either.
$8.95/mo web hosting
How do your prioritize the infringment cases you will pursue and those that will be ignored?
I have heard a couple of guidlines you may use. Can you comment on the following:
The DOJ will pusue poorly funded, small time offenders to establish precedents.
The DOJ will ignore small time offenders because the public interest isn't hurt by them.
The DOJ will work closely with the RIAA to cherry pick cases the RIAA wants in the news.
The DOJ will limit its pursuit of offenders to those who profit from infringement.
>> ...CD-R's labeled for Music actually have a few cents of the price going to the recording industry...
I don't see that has much to do with copyright and fair use. It has everything to do with the record industry's ability and willingness to play hardball politics, something that can't be said for the other side in this argument.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Many large companies are trying to impose an artificial moral on 'intellectual property' by equating copyright violation with piracy and theft. 'Illegal' and 'immoral' are not the same thing.
I'm not justifying illegal copying, and in fact I acknowledge that in many cases illegal copying would be immoral, however, the immorality of copying is far from a self-evident truth. (Abandonware comes to mind.)
Similarly, regardless of its (ab?)use today, I understand that main original reason for the introduction of patent law was to stimulate innovation by having new ideas made public, not because of some underlying moral.
What is your view on this?
I went off on ya, when I didn't hear the sarcasm in your voice. I guess I just wanted to vent.
toodles
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
What is the strategy DOJ will take with regard to prosecuting file sharers?
Will it be to arrest everyone sharing files to have a great "roundup" or will the DOJ focus on "Warez site" type users that share every application in existence and work their way from the top offenders down?
How far back in history does the tally go? If I shared a file last year, can I expect to be eventually arrested?
It seems that the DOJ would have a hard time arresting every last user who has shared/is sharing a file; but at the same time, I wouldn't put it past our government to do a nationwide sting and arrest everyone on kazaa at the same time, retroactively too, in conjunction with local law enforcement.
What can we expect?
l8,
AC
Where do NASCAP and other such organizations get the right to require you to license their music for public performance? This isn't copyright based as far as I know. Is there another specific law that grants this right?
They've really been pushing the envelope with this. For example, requiring a nightclub to pay a yearly license to publicly play recorded music (to entertain the patrons while waiting for the acts to come on) seems reasonable - the club is getting some real value from the playing of the music. But they've also claimed that if a restaurant has kitchen staff listening to the radio loud enough for patrons to hear it, then the restaurant also needs to pay this 'public performance' licensing fee. For RADIO which is broadcast free, and isn't played directly to the patrons. They've also come after bars with TVs - because their songs may be included in a TV ad. Like anyone WANTED to have the TV ads in the first place!, let alone was willing to pay for them. I REALLY don't understand where this right to restrict public performance (as opposed to copying and redistribution) comes from. Obviously laws aimed at book publishers 200 years ago had no such provisions, and I've never heard of book publishers coming after someone for publicly reciting poetry. Comments or explantions?
This is incredibly falacious. It doesn't matter one lick if you know what your doing is wrong or not. If you break a law you can be found guilty.
A lack of knowledge might get you sympathy from the sentencing judge or the procuscuiting attorney. Also it simply might get you jeers as you are sent away.
This kind of argument doens't work for recent immagrants and it woun't work for you.
If ignorance was a way to get out of trouble jails would be empty.
The U.S. has 25% of the world incarcerated population. Don't you think that's enough without adding to it?
>> That's easy. You need to pay a personal visit
... do-nuts ....
>> to your congressman, carrying a large bag
>> of "campaign donations".
Carrying a large bag of doughnuts?
hmmmm
Why, thank you for your kind comments, aaza.
/. saying, essentially, "we want cheap (free) music, and screw whoever loses out, 'cause the RIAA sucks", but not actually providing a solution; as the saying goes "Put up or shut up". I agree that CDs are too expensive for what they are, that musicians aren't rewarded for their (our) work, and that the RIAA has become a monster; but if we are to learn anything from Godzilla films, it is that it takes a monster to fight a monster. Lets make a monster.
I have to admit, the main impetus for the ideas was mainly the frustration of seeing post after post on
Please, copy/paraphrase/link to the parent any time you think it is appropriate; its a start, but I'm sure there are plenty of folks out there who can flesh out or improve the ideas, or even get the ball rolling. I'm just a musician, so no one takes me seriously...
The "thinking AC".
I can't believe I put a "W" in copyright (*slaps forehead*moron!). I think I was pretty trashed.
You seem to make a distinction based upon whether or not the pirate profits.
.EXEs, keygens. Aren't they true pirates?
What about all the crackers that spend countless hours to 'release' a game? What about the people that make rips, cracked/no-cd
What are your professional backgrounds?