Slashdot Mirror
Making The Justice Dept. A Copyright Busybody
This bill, put forward by your friends and mine, Msrs. Leahy and Hatch, would task the JD with filing civil actions against "pirates" - essentially putting your tax dollars to work bringing civil actions against college students in the name of the very largest Copyright holders, allowing them even more spare pocket change to spend lobbying to restrict your already shrinking online freedoms. A choice snippet from the floor: "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..."
And it gets better: "In the long run, I believe that we must find better mechanisms to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens--our children--are not being constantly tempted to infringe the copyrights that have made America a world leader in the production of creative works." Hold on to your wallets folks, they're telling us to "think of the children" again..."
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.
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!
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?
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!
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.
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
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...
#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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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