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.
That guy still hasn't resigned? Hasn't he already done enough damage?
Holy fuck, this is how far he's fallen? He'll be going after the pr0n mavens next! Oh wait ...
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
that the scale of problems facing our nation is so trivial that federal law enforcement can afford to waste their time^W^W^Wgive this matter the attention it deserves ...
illum oportet crescere me autem minui
That's all well and dandy for those pirates who actually make money off of piracy- but that's a small percentage of the pirates out there. The grand majority are either making use of what used to be considered fair use: Mix CDs and tapes for friends, backups of media purchased legally, copies for educational use, etc. If you're going to crack down on piracy and hit them in the wallets so to speak, what do you do when the wallet is empty and has never had any cash in it?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Because if the $100,000 maximum fine per infringement isn't a strong enough deterrent, maybe $200,000 will do the trick, right?
In other news, the State of Texas will now kill you *twice* if the crime is *really* serious.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
"promising to 'hit criminals in their wallets' hoping to ensure that any 'ill-gotten gains' are forfeited."
Perhaps I am mistaken, but aren't most copyright infringers/violaters people doing it for their own personal gains. While there are some people who sell copyrighted stuff they don't own, I suspect 99% of the violations are from kids who share/download music that they weren't authorized by the copyright holder to do so.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
America was founded on piracy of intellectual property, after all, starting with textiles, and extending to many engineering marvels.
I for one miss the days of a single 17 year patent life, and a copyright that ended after 21 years.
And I say that as a published (paid) writer.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
In that case, you will have to pay the value of the copyrighted material multiplied by how many times you shared it. In other words, you better start charging for your pirated material so that you'll be able to pay the fine.
Your government believes that intellectual property is important, and for the most part, they're exactly on the money. Part of America's progress as a world power (if not hegemony) is its exports in information.
Imagine, if you will, that you are leading America in an age where manufacturing has become either trivial and moved offshore, or incredibly complex with the use of robotics and other such things developing nations are not yet good at. What would you do? Intellectual property, even if you don't agree with the term, is important; and although we primarily see lawmakers' views on the issue extending to DRM, audio, and video piracy, I don't think that's their only consideration.
America's cultural exports are powerful and at least worth protecting in some way. But it's more than that. It's about maintaining a leading role in research, development, technology, infrastructure, information technology, and a host of other things. And even though I think the US could use a hell of a lot better implementation to achieve these ideals (especially in regards to the next generation and their schooling), I have to agree that IP infringement is an important issue, and a complex issue.
What is is all that is. Isn't that obvious?
Of the three things listed - only one has ever been considered (under the law) to be fair use. To wit: making backup copies. (C'mon, handing out mix tapes? That's distribution - that's distribution, which is about as blatant as copyright infringement comes.)
I think there's nothing wrong with getting tough on illegally using IP as long as it is extended to include my personal information. I should be able to sue Exxon-Mobil when they "file share" my data with Chase Manhattan or Citigroup. My life is my performance art and all description of it is my copyright. Let's ask the AG what he plans to do about TJX illegally sharing the data of thousands of their customers on the internet.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
Now on the other hand, if I got to fine the MPAA after I watched Catwoman, then I might be in favor of it.
The Athenian democrats had the idea of voting on this while people were still alive -- "ostracism", that is. Only it wasn't so much about deciding who was and was not a criminal, but rather about deciding who was too dangerous to have around, whether because they were too influential, too wealthy, or whatever.
However, they did also have mandatory examinations of public officials upon leaving office, a process called euthynia. Accounts were inspected by randomly selected committees; any citizen could bring an accusation against the official in a public court; embezzlement or corruption would lead to a fine ten times the amount received; incompetence was let off with a fine merely equal to the amount involved.
I rather like the idea.