Meet the DoJ's 'Anti-Piracy' Lawyers

This week's Slashdot interview guests are the 'point people' for Federal criminal actions against online file-traders and software misapproprators. They know some Slashdot readers may have little sympathy for what they do all day. Be that as it may, this is a great chance to understand what it's like on the enforcement side of the intellectual property coin. We have a special set of 'ground rules' for this interview (below) supplied by the Department of Justice that we must ask you to read before submitting questions. From the DoJ (verbatim):

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.

Comments

Re:Definition of "Fair Use"?

[pla]

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.

Purchase vs. License

[red floyd]

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?

This won't be taken seriously, but...

[Maul]

... 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?