Slashdot Mirror
Justice Department Promises Stronger Copyright Punishments
An anonymous reader writes "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has stated that the Justice department will be getting even harder on copyright infringement, targeting repeat offenders. The new 'Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007' is headed for Congress promising to 'hit criminals in their wallets' hoping to ensure that any 'ill-gotten gains' are forfeited.
Justice department to crack down even harder on murders
There are already ample penalties for copyright infringement and ways to shut them down. In fact, it makes no different for the guilty party if he is fined for $100M or $1B, since he will not be able to pay it off anyway. In the meantime, United States has a ridiculously high murder rate compared to other developed countries. Do any politicians up for election in 2008 care to address that? Like you know, stop sales of guns to mentally ill?
I recently read an article on the New Yorker discussing how the United States strong-arms other countries into adopting our own stringent Intellectual Property laws. It just goes to show the continued stance of our government in this area of policy, a stance that is not going to change any time soon. ::sigh::
Partly so that after the creator of the work is dead, the work doesn't also die. If the copyright never expires, then nobody can use it without the copyright holder's permission. If the copyright holder is dead, then he/she can't give permission. Of course, this is ignoring the possibility of transfer of copyright to the estate of the creator.
Also, any creative work which is worthwhile will become known to a large portion of the population. In some sense, it becomes part of our culture. There is an idea that things that are part of our culture and heritage are really collective property, and should be unrestricted. The "Happy Birthday" song is one example: nearly everybody growing up learns that song, and sings it fairly frequently. But, the copyright holder has in recent years decided to tighten the screws, so that restaurants, etc, cannot use the song. This might be said to have had a (minor) detrimental effect on our culture's development. If copyright expires, then suchlike things are mitigated and limited.
Patents are meant to grant a monopoly so that the inventor can get a company selling his invention off the ground even in the face of nasty competition. Monopolies are generally thought to be a Bad Thing, notably by the US government, which has anti-trust laws, so it would be rather contradictory to grant an eternal monopoly.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
The #2 man in the DOJ, Paul McNulty, just submitted his resignation to Gonzales.
The latter (although it's attorneys; presidents cannot fire judges). Firing all the attorneys at the start of a new president's term, to replace them with people the new president wants, is normal and reasonable. Firing some of them later, for what appear to be partisan reasons, is neither.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
There were really only two big mistakes: 1) He waited until there was something the Republicans didn't like to fire them, and 2) He wasn't straight with them about why they were being fired. As mentioned elsewhere, it's perfectly normal for an incoming president to completely repopulate these positions with folks that are friendly to their administration, particularly in the case of a shift from one party to the other. This should have been done immediately, and with the following reason: You were appointed during Clinton's administration, and Bush wants somebody more aligned with his own administration.
As far as all the hullabaloo being raised over the firings now, it's a HUGE waste of taxpayer money with absolutely no purpose other than partisan politics on the part of the Democrats. But rest assured, the Republicans will do the same thing (or something similar) when the opportunity arises. I personally think that both parties ought to be permanently banned from office (including a lifetime ban for anybody that is currently or ever was aligned with either party), and there ought to be a moratorium on unsolicited lobbying by special interest groups (including corporations). Let's get back to a government by the people and for the people, shall we?
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Probably -- in my opinion, current asset forfiture laws amount to little more than state-sanctioned theft. Expanding asset forfiture to include intellectual property law just sweatens the pot for government abuse.
With asset forfiture laws, simply having a large amount of cash in your possession is sufficent evidence for law enforcement to seize property, as demonstrated in this recent case. Neither the police nor the government even needs to prove you are guilty of a crime for the cops to take your stuff; mere suspicion is grounds to grab your house, your car or anything else of value. In 80% of asset forfiture cases, no one is ever even charged with a crime [1]. Better yet -- at least from the government's point of view -- it's up to you to prove that seized assets were not actually obtained through illegal activity. And, as if this weren't enough, if you can't prove in court that your assets weren't used in connection with a crime, guess who gets to pay the bill for the government's attorney costs? Yeap, that's right chief -- that'd be you.
If I were in law enforcement, I suppose expanding the current asset forfiture plan to include intellectual property infractions would give me a warm, fuzzy feeling inside. Hell -- considering how many people likely have a least a mix-tape or two, or simply can't provide a receipt for every piece of IP in their possession, law enforcement might as well have a license to print money if this becomes law.
...you're pretty damn pathetic.
This isn't popular to say on Slashdot now that the abolish-copyright stance has become part of the "groupthink gospel", but I am fed up with largely a particular demographic whining about copyright law and its enforcement. Sure, complain about its excesses, but when in practice it most of the time amounts to complaining about being caught downloading the latest Spiderman movie from your dorm room, all I have to say is: grow up, put up, or shut up.
While copyright infringement is not theft, your average media consumer has as much excuse for knowingly downloading a song or movie in violation of copyright law as he or she does for taking a candybar from the supermarket without paying for it: none at all.
And there is similarly no excuse for not being willing to accept the consequences of those actions, They know it is illegal, yet still do it. Maybe they style themselves as practicing civil disobedience? Then deal with the consequences of those actions. The more out of line the punishment, the more they should relish it, because that is how civil disobedience makes its case. But they don't, because they aren't. It's completely transparent.
Everything from the demographic, to the logic, to the motives, to the actions of these people screams one thing, and it is blatantly obvious to the rest of society: casual copyright infringing consumers want content but are not willing to pay for it. Take just for example that there are now many (perhaps too many) services out there offering legally downloadable music, DRM-FREE, for reasonable prices (reasonable to anyone working hard to earn a living).
Not to mention, abolishing copyright would practically impose significantly upon the rest of society. Prices of movies in theatres would be several times what they are now. Consumers wouldn't be able to buy their favorite movies on DVD. Studios would need to keep them running in theatres as long as possible. Entering a theatre would be more security intensive than boarding an airplane. You would probably have to sign a contract when entering. And yes, mainstream content is mainstream in large part because a great many people like it. These same people think that your svelt black metal and electronica-subgenre is crap. It isn't a conspiracy and no one is a "sheep" for listening to music that makes them happy. Grow up.
You and the artists you like are free to produce as much public domain or copyleft content as you wish. No one is stopping you. No. No, they are not.
Thank you.