Slashdot Mirror
'Pirate Act' Would Shift Copyright Civil Suits To DoJ
mammothboy writes "News.com.com has a story about the new so-called Pirate Act, which seeks to allow federal prosecuters to file civil suits against file swappers. These lawsuits can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars, and if you guessed that the RIAA is lobbying for it, you're right. What's scary is how fast and how quiet its march through the legislative process has been. In '97, the No Electronic Theft Act allowed for criminal lawsuits, but none have been filed, so isn't it clear that the Justice Department has better stuff to deal with?" There actually have been some prosecutions filed under the NET Act, but not many. Update: 05/26 18:51 GMT by T : Declan McCullagh (author of the linked News.com story) writes to clarify: "FYI there have been prosecutions under the NET Act, as you say. But
there have not been any of P2P users. That's why the Senate is doing this."
a civil suit is by preponderance of evidence,
a criminal suit is beyond reasonable doubt.
civil suit is *much* easier to 'win'
that's how the bastar^h^h^h^hlawyers are getting rich...
I don't use p2p to transfer copyrighted material and this legislation still bothers me. Why is the federal government enforcing copyright? Because the music industry doesn't have the money to pay for it? The gvmt is currently running a large deficit. What makes the gvmt (and thus taxpayers) more able to pay than the **AA. People always think money from the federal government is free and available but our taxes are the money that pays for stuff like this. Where is the fiscal restraint in washington. (The sad thing is... that last line might get me modded funny). Contact your reps/senators and let them know that copyright infringement suits over p2p trading are not the government's burden. Even if it were filing suits over any type of copyright infringement (which would actually help the little guy more - when his source code is stolen by a large company/etc) I still don't feel it's the government's place.
I think that you are confusing trademark and copyright. One has to vigorously defend a trademark, or it's lost. Copyright does not require defense; published works are automatically copyrighted, and although the owner may seek restitution, he does not have to do so to maintain the copyright.
If he so wishes, under this new law, Ashcroft can prosecute at will. If he wants to be a dick about it, he can do it without bothering to consult with the copyright holder. Hell, even if the holder decides to release the disputed work into the public domain, Ashcroft could still prosecute the "thief" under the "the Law is the Law" clause of reactionary lore -- the work was copyrighted at the time of the "crime", so the wishes of the holder would be irrelevant.
This is the final stage in the criminalization of what once was a civil offense, if it was an offense at all -- copying a musical work. It used to be criminal if it were done for profit. Now it will be criminal whenever the AG wants to nail someone.
The Church of Scientology is turning cartwheels right now. This has been their pet evil project since the early ninties. They will get to file FEDERAL CRIMINAL CHARGES against people who quote Hubbard's works about the great galactic federation and the atom bombs and the volcanoes. (Hell, I can't even say the "X" word, because the owners of Slashdot will pull my post if the COS says "boo!") This isn't a digression: they have instigated this crusade from '91 to the present day, ever since their flying saucer religion got outed on anon.penet.fi and up to the present day.
And as for Ashcroft and the Justice Department: what an incredible tool for harrassment. Political enemy? Check the ISP logs, see if the Enemy of the State or a member of his family ever downloaded music. Break his financial back, put him or his own in prison. How many people have downloaded tunes? How many are eligible for Club Fed if this law gets passed? If you ever hose some public official, you can spend years dreading the email summoning you to years of court-run hell because you hosted some Guess Who tracks in '02.
Damn, if only we could take over a country somewhere and declare freedom from the Berne Convention...
Ok, first Ashcroft wants to tackle porn (link), then they want the DOJ to go after file swappers?
This is one of the biggest reasons Bush's continued 9/11 references make me ill. I could deal with it if they were actually working to fight terror. Instead, every time somebody waves the bloody shirt, all we get is some tired propaganda for drilling in the Arctic, a Federal Marriage Amendment, tax cuts for the wealthy, or some other thing we have to do to keep the terrorists from winning. Meanwhile, Homeland Security isn't getting the funds it needs for simple, basic port (seaport, not computer port) scanners: link (found on Instapundit).
I'm a hawk on security, folks. A hard-core, let's get them before they get us, serious hawk. And I'm voting against Bush and his idiots for precisely that reason.
(Sorry for the rant, but I just couldn't take it any more. Feel free to mod this down.)
Stop learning! Only you can prevent esoterrorism.
We don't have liberals or conservatives running this country. We basically have corporate lackeys with two different marketing campaigns. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to conservatives isnt the 'invisible hand' of competition supposed to be a self-regulating force that works best without government intervention?
Why is it that conservatives stop being conservative when large corporations want things to go their way in defiance of the wishes of the marketplace (such as file sharing)? Someone help me out here.
-_-
" You can't steal bits and bytes."
Additionally, you cannot return an unsatisfactory CD. You open it, it plays, you bought it. Who's stealing from whom? Suddenly the reason why people'd put their own time and energy into music sharing comes into sharp focus.
I don't know about movies, but regarding pictures, you can read the story of Playboy v. Sanfilippo.