Making The Justice Dept. A Copyright Busybody

Copyright should become a tax by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-02 08:39 · Score: 5, Interesting

The more you make off your copyright and the more protection need, the more you should pay. You create a level below a certain point where you're not taxed (say... $10,000), and then after that, you pay. You could also tie it to length, so a longer copyright would cost more than a new one.

Re:Copyright should become a tax by silentbozo · 2004-05-02 08:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

The more you make off your copyright and the more protection need, the more you should pay.

I was thinking the exact same thing, only it should not only be tied to the asset valuation, but to time as well. For example, for the first 5 years of a copyright, you don't get taxed - after that, you get assessed an "Intellectual Property Tax".

The problem with the idea is that asset taxes are inherently evil - so evil that I'm not sure that I'd want to create a new bureaucracy to handle the assessment, levying, and paperwork. It's bad enough we have property taxes (and for very unlucky folks), business asset taxes (ie, I buy a computer, pay a sales tax, and for the next 5 years, I have to pay 3% of the remaining value on the computer to the local county). Can you imagine some auditor going into the library of congress, and sending off letters to authors, playwrights, etc., arguing that their work is worth $X, even though it's been out of print for years, and that they owe back taxes?

On the other hand, if we can't get a limitation to copyright duration, then we should be taxing the hell out of it, so at least SOME public good comes out of it.

When copyright and IP laws are torn all to hell, blame the MPAA and the RIAA for trying to push the envelope and just not being smart enough to leave things alone (just as traditional junk mailers and call centers can blame spammers and telemarketers for the woes that have befallen them as a result of super-sensitizing people to ad-interruptions.)
Re:Copyright should become a tax by kalidasa · 2004-05-02 08:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

Bad idea. Disney would just buy a 10,000,000 year copyright on everything they could get their hands on.
Re:Copyright should become a tax by Jugalator · 2004-05-02 08:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

Bad idea. Disney would just buy a 10,000,000 year copyright on everything they could get their hands on.

I liked this idea, and of course the costs should be set so it isn't economically possible to buy a copyright for 10 million years. :-)

--
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Re:Copyright should become a tax by j1m+5n0w · 2004-05-02 09:24 · Score: 5, Interesting
What if it was a monotonically increasing percentage of revenue? Like a sales tax, but it gets more each decade. For instance:
- first 10 years: free
- next 10 years: 10% of revenue
- next 10 years: 20% of revenue
- ???
- Profit! Err, I mean, Enter Public Domain!
This way, if Disney is still making substantial revenue from an old work, they pay a proportionally high fee.
There should probably also be an exponentially increasing minimum "copyright maintenance" fee, to create an incentive to put works that generate no revenue into the public domain.
It seems reasonable to me that lengthy copyright protection should be a paid service. Copyright seems like a system of getting something for nothing (which isn't always a bad thing, but current copyright laws have become ridiculous).
-jim
Re:Copyright should become a tax by sir_cello · 2004-05-02 09:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

What a load of garbage: you want to tax people for merely having copyrighted works? Not only would be virtually impossible to implement, but would create a huge disincentive to create copyright works (I'd stop writing informal papers, people would stop creating open source software - all for fear that the tax department levy bills on them).

As it stands, (a) if you make money out of the works you have to pay tax anyway, and (b) if you are a business, the accounting rules are increasingly requiring that valuable intangibles are accounted for as assets anyway.
Re:Copyright should become a tax by silentbozo · 2004-05-02 10:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

What a load of garbage: you want to tax people for merely having copyrighted works?

Not having. Owning. An important distinction.

Not only would be virtually impossible to implement, but would create a huge disincentive to create copyright works (I'd stop writing informal papers, people would stop creating open source software - all for fear that the tax department levy bills on them).

See paragraph two of why I said that asset taxes are inherently evil. Even though open source is free - you'd still have to convince some assessor that you shouldn't be taxed. This adds friction to the economic process, and is inherently less efficient (that's why it's evil.) On the other hand, I'm assuming the system would be set up such that if you are not making any money on the property, you don't get taxed. (see parent to my post.)

if you make money out of the works you have to pay tax anyway

Theoretically true. Not necessarily true. The bigger the business, the more money they stand to save by NOT paying their taxes (ie, tax shelters.)

The original poster who proposed the idea (see parent of my post) essentally was re-proposing the idea that someone who leverages their copyright for economic benefit should be required to pay for that privilege. As it stands now, you're pretty much granted a free monopoly for longer than any of us will probably be alive. The original intent was for the people to grant that monopoly in exchange for making that item available to the public, monopoly-free after a certain number of years, in order to benefit the public (ie, it's a two way street.) Because of abuses of the copyright system, if they don't intend to ever give up control, then there needs to be some mechanism to either force their hand, or recoup some public benefit.

An asset tax is a lousy way of doing trying to recoup some of that public benefit, but it is one alternative if they refuse to roll back the copyright duration. Again, read paragraph two, where I state that asset taxes are so inherently evil, that it's probably not the way to go.
Re:Copyright should become a tax by tepples · 2004-05-02 15:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

the state decides it wants to get in my face about oweing it taxes when I just want to subsist farm, mabye sell some crops to buy a couple things here and there and be left well enough alone.

What right do you have to, say, defense without paying for it?
Re:Copyright should become a tax by sir_cello · 2004-05-02 21:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't think that is a workable model. The idea behind automatic copyright of works is that it protects works created by average citizens. In a system that requires registration, all that happens is that large organisations with financial ability will ensure that all of their works are registered, and all the average citizens won't - finding out that their mass of web content (as per Pew study) gets ripped off and used by someone else. The rest of the world survived for much longer than the US with automatic copyright attracting works and it caused no problems.

Secondly, regarding putting things into the public domain. I don't think so. If I create a noteworthy paper, then I'm pleased that people can read it and use it, but the last thing I want is for other people to strip off the attribution and distribute the work - leaving me without any recognition. Again, this would be a huge disincentive: why create a work when you don't obtain attribution for it ? Sure there are some people that are happy just to release their works to the world, but some of us actually need to make a living and build a reputation with our works.

Your idea is deeply flawed.
Re:Copyright should become a tax by sir_cello · 2004-05-03 04:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

> This is seriously short-sighted. It has caused a gigantic problem.

And those problems are ?

> While in a proper system, people might not initially be aware that they need to register, the vast majority of them likely couldn't care less.

No, not until they find that their works are being used by other people without any compensation. Nor until 20 years later when the work becomes relevant for some other reason.

> The US got along GREAT when it required registration, and yet everything's been going to hell since we foolishly passed the 1976 Act.

Explain the problems to me?

> That might be very true, but who the fuck cares what you want? Just you.

Sure, and every one else who puts content on the web and either puts a "authored by" or "copyright by" does that not because they want attribution but for some other reason. Get real.

> Again, this would be a huge disincentive: why create a work when you don't obtain attribution for it ?
> Because it's your job, or hobby, or school assignment, or was comissioned, or it's for art's sake, or any of a hundred reasons.

Then these people can choose to publish their works without attribution or release them to the public domain. Other people can choose the opposite. Under your system, we're all forced to once choice.

> Copyright is only _one_ incentive.

Wrong: copyright isn't an incentive - it just ensures that protection is in place, irrespective of the motivation. Incentive is typically for other reasons: enjoyment, fame, career, money, hobby, family reasons, etc.

Default coypright ensures that my emails are default protected at no cost automatically from someone compiling a commercial publication. Of course, if I felt the other way, I could just mark them as "released to the public domain".

In an "automatic" system, the default power leans towards the creator of the work, not towards those who want to appropriate the work. I think you have a deeply flawed and misplaced understanding of the situation control to most of the people in the world who if given the choice would say they'd prefer to have this right over things they've created.
Re:Copyright should become a tax by cpt+kangarooski · 2004-05-03 05:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

And those problems are ?

The problem is that a hell of a lot of works that ought to be in the public domain are not.

No, not until they find that their works are being used by other people without any compensation. Nor until 20 years later when the work becomes relevant for some other reason.

Well, as to the first point, I suppose that the author will know better the next time, although typically it's not as though they'd be likely to get compensation anyhow, since the expenses of working with authors tends to drive people towards having to do things independently. That means there's a lot of wasted effort, another bad thing. As to the second, I personally favor 5 year copyrights that at most could be renewed so as to last a total of 25 years. So it's not as though such an author would be missing much. But then, few works are ever of any commercial value, and the vast majority of those are valuable within a few years of creation. It's sufficiently unusual to see a work being worthless for so long and then suddenly becoming useful that it's not something we should design the system for.

Explain the problems to me?

Terms got much longer, that "moral rights" bullshit made a tiny bit of headway, international copyright treaties didn't end up in the trash where they belong, formalities were largely forgotten, the utility doctrine has been gutted, etc.

Then these people can choose to publish their works without attribution or release them to the public domain. Other people can choose the opposite. Under your system, we're all forced to once choice.

Works are copyrighted regardless of attribution. Right now if you make something that's eligible for a copyright, it is copyrighted, unless you specifically place it in the public domain.

That's only one choice.

I merely propose to invert that, and put things back to the way they were for most of our history -- that works are in the public domain unless the author thinks it's worthwhile to get a copyright. Since a copyright is burdensome on the public, we should not hand them out willy nilly, but only see them granted to works where they're actively desired. Formalities help by making it clear what is in fact copyrighted, by preserving those works despite the author, and by weeding out authors who want something for nothing.

Wrong: copyright isn't an incentive

Nope. Copyright is an incentive.

It's simple how it works, but perhaps it escaped you: Without copyrights, some works are created (we know this from history) and the public can fully enjoy all of them. With copyrights, we give the copyright holder some control over public enjoyment, temporarily, which can be parlayed for money, and this encourages them to create more works so as to take advantage of that. Since the public wants both more works and full enjoyment, the copyrights are limited in duration.

Because it is harmful to the public for works to not be in the public domain, it shouldn't happen unless necessary. If it's necessary to encourage creation AND the creation and term expiration will ultimately yield a greater public good than would've happened without copyrights at all, then it's still for the net public good. If the work would've been created anyhow, then copyrights didn't encourage it, but did harm the public. That's bad.

It's impossible, of course, to perfectly weed the various sorts of works out, but requiring registration helps.

The same logic is at work in the patent system, which does require inventors to specifically apply for a patent. In fact, they have to very rapidly, and it's a long and expensive process.

This isn't really subject to debate -- this is how it is, as you'd know if you spent any amount of time studying the issue.

Default coypright ensures that my emails are default protected at no cost automatically from someone compiling a commercial publication.

Yes, and how does it benefit the public f

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Outsourcing lawsuits... by silentbozo · 2004-05-02 08:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

Wow, outsourcing legal work to the goernment, and you don't even need to pay them! Man, is that a racket or what? Up until now, you actually had to be elected to treat taxpayers as your own piggy-bank, thanks to the RIAA and the MPAA, copyright holders (with influence) can now get paid by the american people for... suing the american people!

Re:Outsourcing lawsuits... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-02 10:06 · Score: 1, Interesting

Yes, but it does not end there. RIAA/MPAA "outsource" lawsuits to the government, which then (as part of the Presidents Management Agenda), then "competitively sources" (outsources without the nasty "out" part) to contractors working behalf of the govt - at a much higher rate, since the new OMB revisions to A-76 no longer pretend that outsourcing will save the govt money. Who do you suppose pays the truck drivers Halliburton has in Iraq? Any guesses at the hourly rate the KBR charges and how much corporate pockets??

Can the "little guy" benefit from IP? by PurifyYourMind · 2004-05-02 08:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

I suppose it's nice that the fees are reduced for smaller entities. But can individuals or small organizations actually enforce copyright online? I mean, most people don't have the resources to fund drawn out or chronic lawsuits. Is a cease-and-desist letter powerful enough?

This should have been one of Bush's priorities by ShatteredDream · 2004-05-02 08:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

Getting a bigger, more productive Patent Office which thousands of new analysts who know their stuff would do a lot to fixing some of the problems in the economy. By putting many people on the payroll who know what bad patents are, the government can ethically protect businesses from the real pirates: the ones who use IP law to control the productive capabilities of American industry.

Reform should not stop here though. The Bush Administration should make it a priority to strip the FDA of most of its discressionary powers to block drugs it thinks "don't do enough" and to give it more resources to expedite the processing of drug safety tests so that drug companies can profit more easily (thus they don't have to charge as much).

--
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!

wouldn't that benefit the GPL? by Goeland86 · 2004-05-02 08:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

Wait, wouldn't that same bill also allow the Attorney General to prosecute people infringing the GPL? If we use the open licenses more and more, it serves us in the end, no? Or does it apply only to copyrights made with the copyright office? I think this could be indeed a useful law in the future, if used by us GPL lovers. What do you think?

--
---- I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.

Reminds me of a line from a movie about Cuba by ShatteredDream · 2004-05-02 08:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

Cuban security director: "ma'am, Cuba loves its children."

Woman: "Cuba only loves its children until they grow up."

--
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!

Copyrights, trademarks, and patients by Orion+Blastar · 2004-05-02 08:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

are so high in price that only large organizations can afford to apply for them.

I have had many ideas I could not patent, trademark, or copyright because I could not afford to. Plus their database is hard to search, one of them is still in telnet form! When will these databases get into the 21st century?

My former employer said they made 40 patients based on my ideas. I tried to search on the employer's name, but that is not an available option. I searched on my name, which came up with nothing. So obviously they registered the patents in someone else's name as the inventor. Which I later found is not valid to do, as I am the inventor of those ideas.

Give a discount to people based on income level for the fees. For Pete's sake they can gather the info from the IRS for people and the SEC for companies. Also have an idea tax that taxes a small fee for revenue used for the ideas, so the government can collect some money as well.

--
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.

so you got first astroturf post... by alizard · 2004-05-02 08:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

OK, we know which side you're on. Whether you actually believe the crap you're speaking or you've got a sponsor that makes your words astroturf is known only to you and your sponsor. All I can say is that if you're getting paid, the PR firm should demand its money back. You're whining, not arguing.

We also know that by and large, "piracy" translates to end users redistributing reduced quality versions of the real products on their own dimes to the profit of the record and film industries. There are a long list of reasons why the Hollywood content cartel do not like letting the free market determine how they get marketed instead of giving them sole discretion as to what the public finds out about a product before release, the main one is that it can make crap movies or records DOA befcre they hit the street as well as take good ones to number 1. However, "protecing businesses from incompetence" is not a proper use of taxpayer funds.

However, the real question here is WHY should the Feds spend our money to assist copyright holders take legal action against end users. Traditionally, that is the copyright holder's problem, which the copyright owner asserts in exchange for the ability to derive income from the copyright.

If you wish to donate YOUR money to the RIAA and MPAA for attacking end users, your privilege. Don't bring the rest of us in to this.

--
Tech Public Policy stuff

Re:Copyright should become a tax (chicken or egg?) by turnstyle · 2004-05-02 08:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

"The more you make off your copyright and the more protection need, the more you should pay."

OR, the more you consume copyrighted works, the more you should pay, no?

--
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda

Such a shame.... by MancDiceman · 2004-05-02 09:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

People don't realise that it does indeed cost money to produce creative works, and those people who invested in them have a right to protect them. If it costs you $100 million to create a feature film, what incentive is there for you as an investor, a studio, whoever, to put that money in if within a week of the final edit being finished it is distributed to your entire audience for free?

Somebody else here has already pointed out that "open music" is about you going out, playing an instrument, singing, writing lyrics and tunes, putting it all together and distributing it under the terms you want.

The "file-sharing" model is to open enterprise what warezing Win XP is to downloading your favourite Linux distro.

So, instead of trying to take other people's music and distributing it without their permission, how about you actually try and create music people want and give it away under terms like the GPL, much in the same way you do with software now?

No? Why not? No, seriously, I want to know why not...

Re:Such a shame.... by etymxris · 2004-05-02 10:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

So, instead of trying to take other people's music and distributing it without their permission, how about you actually try and create music people want and give it away under terms like the GPL, much in the same way you do with software now?
It was done, more or less, and called mp3.com. I am not an artist myself, but I willingly give up what I produce (code, pedestrian essays, perhaps some photos) under the GPL or similar. Though slightly tangential, I also buy exclusively from artists that are not RIAA affiliated, and do not myself pirate music.

If it costs you $100 million to create a feature film, what incentive...
Well, why should there be any such incentive? I know this is an extreme example, but it is a suitable analogy: The slave owners used to say something very similar--"How will I be able to run a plantation without slaves? The Southern economy will just collapse!" From my perspective, a government enforced monopoly on some idea or concept is a greater wrong than any profitable venture that the lack of such enforcement prevents. Just as a moral plantation owner will learn to have to function without slaves, a moral artist will learn to have to function without "ownership" of ideas. We may not have the Matrix or Microsoft Windows, but then again, perhaps the price we pay for such things is too much.

Some questions by Orion+Blastar · 2004-05-02 09:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

#1 What is the definition of Piracy? Is it making illegal copies and then selling them, or is it just making illegal copies? What about copies for backup purposes or that fall under "Fair Use"?

#2 Most other crimes carry the "burden of proof" on the prosecutor. Why is this one different? Hey there, John Doe is using Kazaa, even though we found no MP3 files on his hard drive besides the ones he bought or has a right too, the fact that he has Kazaa shows that he "Might" be sharing said files with others. We have no evidence of the sharing, but the fact that he uses Kazaa is enough for us to brand him a pirate! Slap an eyepatch and peg-leg on him and send him to jail!

#3 So what pirates are they targeting? While a majority of the pirated copies come from other countries such as China, Russia, etc, we have no legal power over there, so instead we shall target teenagers and college students who don't know any better and only want to share songs with friends, etc. "Sc*w fair use, we got the copyright laws rewritten to exclude it. Jane Doe is using part of a Metallica song in a college presentation, so we will lock her up and throw away the key!

#4 How much money earned is enough? Oh sure we make a ton of money selling $20USD CDs that cost us 50 cents to make and ship, and only give $2USD to the artists, but we could be making more if the John Does and Jane Does of the world stop using our songs without permission and sharing them, while they are promoting our songs and possibly generating more sales, we have a potential to earn even more income by suing these individuals.

--
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.

Why civil suits by smiff · 2004-05-02 09:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

"For too long, Federal prosecutors have been hindered in their pursuit of pirates, by the fact that they were limited to bringing criminal charges with high burdens of proof..."

In a criminal case, the government must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". In a civil suit, they must only prove the preponderance of the evidence.

In a criminal case, if the defendant is acquited, the goverment must return the defendant's belongings. In a civil case, the government can seize a person's belongings and the defendant must prove his innocence to get them back.

The most significant difference is that in a criminal case, if the defendant can not afford an attorney, the government must provide one. In a civil case, the defendant is left to fend for himself.

Re:Song of the piracy apologist by wasabii · 2004-05-02 09:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

Awesome. Totally awesome.

Eh. I download music. I will offer no defense or moral or legal justification for it however.

I download a lot of music in fact. But, let's consider the last week:

Friend sent me a link to this album by the Stars. Very good. Like, I was amazed how good. It was so good in fact that I went over to Amazon and ordered it. I also noticed on Amazon that they had another album, so I ordered it too, without having heard it before. Purchase was justified as the music was really top notch.

This actually repeated itself twice in a week. Friend sent me really crappy rips of Pinback's new album Offcell... burnt them to CD, played them over and over and over again. Ended up buying that CD, as well as their two previous CDs. While I was at the store buying those, I noticed another CD from another artist I had downloaded (VAST) and grabbed that as well.

I have a lot of music however that I never did pay for. There are a few albums in there, that if I could find, I would definatly buy in a heartbeat. There are also a lot that I really would never buy in a second.

Now, im a reclusive computer geek type. I do not as a matter of habit go out to shows, or assoicate with people. If I hadn't gotten those albums from that friend, I wouldn't have bought them. Ever. And I also wouldn't have been buying random albums from bands that get absolutly zero air time on any radio station... in fact, this brings up a curious question. These artists I like are indie. where did people hear about them pre-internet? I don't know. :)

So, anyways, that's just one persons experience. I won't attempt to say I'm right or justified in downloading music. However, in my specific 1% case, it has made a big difference in the music I listen to. If it goes away, *I* will be out of a great source... and I'm not positive what it would be replaced by.

Not sure this is constitutional by cfulmer · 2004-05-02 09:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

So, recognize that I've only had one semester of constitutional law, but....

Article III Section 2 of the US Constitution says that the judicial power applies to "cases" and "Controversies." Under current constitutional doctrine, this means that in order to get into federal courts on a civil matter, there is a requirement that the person bringing the suit have standing: He has to have an injury which can be remedied by the court.

I don't think that the Justice Department would have standing because it neither (1) has been injured nor (2) is an organization litigating the rights of its members, who have been injured -- this is about what happens when the RIAA sues people.

IANAL (yet...), so don't consider this legal advice. But, the whole thing just seems a bit fishy.

Hmmm.... somebody has got something wrong here... by mwooldri · 2004-05-02 09:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

I presume here that we're treating copyright (and other similar intellectual property) the same as tangible artifacts.

Let's say that someone breaks into my home, and steals my TV. Right now, I can enlist the help of law enforcement, who might catch the person responsible for the theft. If they do, provided I want to pursue this, they could then go ahead and prosecute the thief, and if found guilty would then serve a punishment. I might not get my TV back, but the person who stole it did not 'get a free lunch'.

The same principle seems to be applied here to copyrights. The thing I need to understand, is the theft of a copyright a civil matter, or a criminal matter? If it is a civil matter, then the DoJ certainly does not need to get involved, they have enough to do in the criminal arena. Let the RIAA, the MPAA and all their cronies fund their own lawsuits, just like everyone else who has to fund a civil lawsuit. But if the theft of a copyright is now a criminal matter, and is to be considered a felony, then I see no reason why the person who has a precious artifact stolen has recourse to the police and the DoJ whereas someone who stole a copyright does not have access to these resources - especially if the consequences for the person who stole the artifact is the same for those who stole the copyright.

I personally don't care too much for the RIAA and MPAA's strong-arm tactics, but copyright certainly needs reform. Perhaps there needs to be a two tier copyright system, there would be Copyright I and Copyright II. I would envisage Copyright I to be like existing copyright. It would expire 90 years after the death of the creator, and the Copyright I holders would have recourse to the civil courts for enforcing their rights. It would be cheap to get, but expensive to enforce. There would also be Copyright II. Copyright II would be more expensive to maintain, and as someone mentioned earlier, yes there would be a 'tax', maybe a yearly tax. The Copyright would be tradeable, and would be in force as long as the 'tax' is paid on it (so the likes of Mickey Mouse would be protected forever). Copyright II would however, because of the increased fees that Copyright II holders would pay, would have recourse to law enforcement and the Department of Justice in order to enforce those copyrights, and theft of the copyrights would enjoy penalties like that in criminal theft cases.

That would be my simplistic way of reforming the copyright system.

Mark.

Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil by firewrought · 2004-05-02 09:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

Most of the music downloaded is theft.

True, but a legitimate question is "should corporations be allowed to hold monopolies on culture?". I don't think copyright should be abolished but this "world leader in the production of creative works" BS ignores the fact that mass-produced culture is not very authentic culture. Weaker copyrights might make a stronger society... it's an option worth exploring anyways.

That day 0 copy of the next StarWars can and should land you in jail plain and simple.

Go to jail for copying a song? Sending somebody to jail is not cheap. Not only do you have to pay the (relatively trivial) cost of incarceration, you also lose that individual's productive input to society. Also, the more people you put in jail, the more construction activity must go into jails (instead of say, libraries or offices). The more people in jail, the more guards/wardens/police/judges/lawyers you need. Human potiential that could be put towards space, towards knowledge, towards medicine...

As a general rule, when "everybody" is breaking the law, it's time to revise the law, not throw more people into jail.

--
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction

counterfeiting and piracy brings this on by sir_cello · 2004-05-02 09:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, the figures I've seen from customs activities border enforcement show that detected counterfeit computer software and music and related multimedia have increased 400% in the last couple of years, and piracy rates in this area are 40%.

When you have _actual evidence_ of this level of lost income, which for the government translates into lost taxes, then you understand why the government is stepping in and helping.

I'm sure if the figures were much lower, the government couldn't care less.

Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-02 10:17 · Score: 1, Interesting

Their are a lot of more serious crimes being 'overlooked' that don't get enforced. Why are copyright laws enforced with such vigor, yet white colar (Sunpoint Securities) and illegal's are give what amounts to a free pass?

Securities fraud is rampant, I work for a Telco that is merging with Cingular. Upper management gave themselves stock at 9 dollars, and agreed to merge at 15 dollars. Employees bought stock at 29.50.
Over 80% of the stock holders are employees loosing money due to this merger. Where is the investigation of back room deals?

Normal citizens will not vote or fight the problems of today. They could care less. The small number of people who do rally against a cause are beaten, gassed, and thrown in jail. You can't even protest in this country anymore without physical violence from police. Riot control is big business, every major city is expanding to fight who "The people".

The only movement of today is the rich corporations who give money to the politicans to further their goals. There are more Haliburton trucks than US Aid and Humvees total in Iraq.

We have local politicans accepting money that makes the news ever year, and they stay in office. Unless an opposing Political group can force them out of office.

Jaded? How about realistic, our country is in shambles. We are at war (Vietnam2, the police action) and the only thing King Bush can do is denounce gay marriage, talk about God gave him the right to rule, and take more vacation days than any president in history. (While at WAR to boot!) But don't follow the issues, look at the red herrings in the new, Kerry's wife owns stock in company that outsources, boooo, hisss. Wait, shes not on the board? Kerry fought and denounced the war, that makes him evil! Wait, he earned the right to talk about the war. Bush, well he got free haircuts in the state guard. Whos the real hero?

While the EFF and LP are working their ass's off in lawsuits, this country is a battered and going down in flames. Outsourcing, unemployment rates, religious actions, crime are the issues, but the most important thing is Piracy. Piracy is the back room companies burning off dvd's by the hundreds, not a college trading a britney spears CD. Thats copyright infringement.

I'm just young enough to think I can make a change, but old enough to know better.

Fuck it, time to listen to garagebands.com and drink booze, at least those mp3s are free!

Does Leahy work for Eisner? by wytcld · 2004-05-02 10:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

Eisner's family owns a large estate in SE Vermont for many years.

So, see how Eisner has rewarded Leahy for his work on the Mickey Mouse copyright extension and other acts of kindness.

--
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton

Re:Song of the piracy apologist by Internet_Communist · 2004-05-02 10:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

I wasn't really sure how to respond to this as many of the points are valid. I don't apologize for violating copyrights and just disagree entirely with the copyright system.

Now, I would support the copyright system if it was a system of open distribution, like a GPL style system, but to say without copyright you can't have the GPL is not really the case if what a person is really advocating is change, not simply elimination. I think the arguments that person made are pretty weak but I also think some of yours are.

You say it's legally and morally wrong. Legally, yes, morally, who's morals? Yours or mine?

I think Abe Lincoln says it better than I ever can:

"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."

--

If you don't want someone to copy something, don't give it to anyone.

Letter I sent my Senators - feel free to use it by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-02 10:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

Senator xxxx,

Please vote "No" on S.2237.

- Having a look at who is sponsoring it (Hatch and Leahy) alone, it is obvious that this is a matter of legislation on behalf of the large media conglomerates.

- This legislation would involve the justice department in pursuing action against casual, non-criminal (civil) infringement.

- This legislation is an attempt on behalf of the large media conglomerates to place upon tax payers the legal bill for pursuing unreasonable and outrageous civil penalties against their sons and daughters in highschool and college.

If we are to be forced to assume the legal bills of the RIAA and MPAA, then it is time to have a legitimate and serious public hearing on the illegitimacy of the ever expanding "Intellectual Property" regime that is:
- Destroying our commons.
- Defying the intent and wisdom of our founders.
- Tying up and suppressing the past 70 years of our history in the pocketbooks of corporate non-entities.
- Inventing a "right to profit" from what was originally a right of the public to promote the interests of the commons.

Disney's archive vault is NOT the commons.

Thank you for your time,

xxxx

Re:Wait a minute.... by rben · 2004-05-02 11:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

Actually the EFF has a pretty good idea. Since I don't download music, I wouldn't have to pay. With this RIAA proposal, they wouldn't even have to sue people anymore, now, the suits would be instigated by the DoJ using my tax money. I'd have to pay for the lawsuits against kids.

I doubt the EFF idea will be adopted since it's so sensible and the RIAA won't stop until they can charge everyone three dollars for every song they ever listen too.

The behavior of the members of the RIAA has been exactly the same as if they were one large monopoly. They don't really compete. They charge the same price for everything they produce no matter how crappy it is.

What is really sad is how obviously our lawmakers are selling out. They cry out that it's all about law and order and then happily make criminals out of all our kids. What it's really about is money, as always.

--

-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra

Big corps pay more? Probably not. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-02 19:47 · Score: 1, Interesting

> including raising fees, raising fees more for those who most use the system, and providing discounts for small entities (who'da thunk?)

Big corp A need patent.
A create small company B.
B files patent with extra reduced cost (being small).
A buys up B for 1$.

Re:Nice try, by Pofy · 2004-05-02 20:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

No matter what various dictionaries might claim or say, and what people might think of similarities, it is important to note the difference in regard to LAW. From a law perspective it is NOT theft since theft laws does not apply. If they did, why on earth would we need copyright laws to beging with? We could just apply normal laws regarding theft.

Slashdot Mirror

Making The Justice Dept. A Copyright Busybody

36 of 381 comments (clear)