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.
That's easy. The 'official' answer is that they prevent piracy from eating up companies' profits so that they can continue making programs for 'consumers' to buy. Otherwise there would be no programs.
(Disclaimer: I am saying that that would be THEIR answer, not mine. OSS is truly a lovely concept.)
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?
This question is answered here.
Keep in mind that these prosecutors don't write the laws. They just enforce them. Your question would be better directed to a member of Congress.
If you RTFA, you'd know that this question won't get answered because it constitutes legal advice pertaining to a personal situation, something they cannot do (legally or ethically).
Though he could have phrased it better, no, he did not ask for legal advice on a personal situation. He asked the larger question (again, phrased poorly in a manner that appears personal) of "Do I have the right to download music I already own in some format, specifically, analog?".
However, I have little doubt the DoJ will not want to touch that one with a 10-foot-C&D, since the RIAA would say "no way in hell" but US law says "probably". Mustn't step on the toes of one's corporate masters, after all.
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
... 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
#include "disclaimer.h"
#undef LEGAL_ADVICE
No, I didn't buy a license to anything -- I bought a copy. I have the right to use that copy as a piece of my property: I lack the right to make and redistribute copies of it, since that is the creator's exclusive right under copyright and I have no license (i.e. permission) to do so.
Copyright does not include the idea of a "license to use". It is concerned only with the right (or lack of a right) to make and distribute copies, derivative works, and suchlike. The rights that a creator receives under copyright are rights to restrict others' copying and the making of derivative works -- not rights to restrict others' noncopying use of legally-obtained copies.
Licensure enters the picture only when copying enters the picture. I do not need a license from J. K. Rowling or her publisher to read The Order of the Phoenix. I also do not need a license to take my purchased copy, cut it up, and make paper airplanes from it -- or to lend it to my friend. I would need a license to legally scan it into my computer, make a PDF of it, and distribute it online -- a license that Rowling et al. have no interest in selling me, certainly.
It is trivially simple to debunk the claim that purchasers of copies of media are purchasing "licenses to use" the media: licenses are always explicit. When authors and publishers negotiate the publisher's purchase of rights to a book (a license), that license is written out as part of a contract. The publisher does not simply accept the physical manuscript pages and pay the author (purchasing a copy, albeit the only copy perhaps): an assignment of copyright licensure is in a contract, entered into knowingly by both sides. Thus, if a media purchaser has no demonstrable contract with a copyright owner, no license can be said to exist ... and you cannot unknowingly or unintentionally enter into a contract!
(Further, a license and the violation thereof is not necessary to make copyright violation illegal: it is illegal already, as the default state of works is to be copyrighted. Copyright is not a matter of violation of contract; it is a matter of violation of the law.)
Copyright is really simple: don't copy and distribute stuff you didn't create, without the creator's permission. Trying to complicate things with "licenses" for the common reader or listener is nothing short of villainy.
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?