Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Justice Department Promises Stronger Copyright Punishments

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the dancing-the-big-business-polka dept.

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.

2 of 322 comments (clear)

  1. The headline should have been by iamacat · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?

  2. Re:it's a good thing ... by rmckeethen · · Score: 5, Informative

    Does this mean your computer (and possibly your home) can be taken by government officials when you've pirated a few too many MP3s? Or written DVD-playback software for Linux?

    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.