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.
Alberto Gonzalez will forget he ever said this in a month.
No corruption to be seen here in the DOJ. Move along.
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
This just means more RIAA/MPAA asshattery. I'm sure the lawyers are collectively rubbing their hands together in glee.
-PxB
If you're referring to the Attorney General, I agree 100%
Yes, make the punishment harder, so they have a harder punishment than rapists, pedophiles, and murders? -rolleyes-
Corruption at the Justice Department. The laws are to protect the citizens. The citizens do not want strong copyright punishments. That is what the big media corporations want.
They're still up to their bullshit. There are copyright laws, there are patent laws, there are trademark laws. There is no such thing as an Intellectual Property law. That's a big blanket that the megacorps want to pull over our eyes in order to gain more power. Taken individually, copyright, patent, and trademark laws have acceptable checks and balances built into them (Except the ones that have been stroked by Mickey Mouse). But what they're after is a true Intellectual Property law that has no balancing of Megacorp vs. Common Good. They want it to be all Theirs, and no Ours.
Be careful, whenever some politician blabbers on about "Intellectual Property", it really means they are in bed with the Megacorps and want to muddy the issue in order to set some bastardized legal precedent on the sheep-like public who won't notice a thing until the water boils.
FTA:
"said he would "hit criminals in their wallets" by boosting restitution and ensuring all ill-gotten gains are forfeited, as well as any property used to commit the crimes."
So, what if no one's profiting off of the infringement?
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
It is pretty much proven that he is responsible for firing several government lawyers because they pissed off Republican politicians. That is bordering on criminal. He could be impeached. He could be thrown in jail.
He has George Bush's backing but so did Rummy and then Boom he was gone.
This is the second part of the badness that comes from criminalizing copyright infringement. (The first thing was the shift of the cost of prosecution from the copyright holders to the taxpayers.)
Now that copyright infringement is criminal, politicians, attorneys and law enforcement can all cry for even more money, to be "tough on crime". Plus, since I'd guess most everyone over age ten in the US has infringed someone's copyright (downloaded something, photocopied without permission, duped a video tape, etc), it becomes yet another crime you can be charged with if someone in power decides you need to be arrested.
What we really need is copyright reform.
Soooo that means teh average person copying a movie that they have already gone to see, or a piece of software they cant afford anyway and just want to play with, wont get a fine at all since they didnt make any profit.
Cool. That is the way it should be.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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 the grand scheme of things, chasing down KIDS who share mp3's just doesn't seem as important as establishing Federal guidelines for voting machines.
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?
Absolutely!
If you get caught smoking pot or drinking under age.
Then sex with a minor (even if you're one too): 17 yr old sex with 15 yr old - 10 years
And downloading a song. Why you should die! Put to death! Because the law is the law and laws are just and true! Why, all of the lobbyists in Washington just want what's best for us and so do our legislators.
And if it's illegal then that means it's EVIL and must be banned because our politicians are infallible! It's inconceivable that they would even make a mistake and violate our liberties. Why, if you disagree with the law, you're unAmerican and HATE freedom!
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
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::
Doesn't Gonzalez realize that this sort of corporate pandering won't happen now that we have Democrats in charge of congress?
Do you have ESP?
I've always been a supporter of two-term presidents (and their staffs):
One term in office.
One term in jail.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
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.)
in one corner, well-moneyed corporate interests with lawmakers and enforcers in their pockets
in the other corner, legions of poor, borderless, highly motivated, technically astute, and media loving teenagers who couldn't give one rats ass about the bloated overreaching joke that copyright law in this country has become, because it is way beyond speaking to them in the language of right and wrong
copyright law is WAY beyond protecting the artist's rights when you can't play "happy birthday" on a piano without the need to pay someone/ get permission, and mickey mouse will NEVER be in the public domain. the idea is to strike a balance between the common good and the rights of the artist. but moneyed middle men have stuck a big fat finger on that scale, and it's permanently imbalanced. in other words, copyright law is broken, corrupt, insoluble, dead
poor teenagers versus corporate interests. it's not even a blink of an eye who will obviously win: the teenagers
the future of ip law in the usa is china: lip service played to the idea at official levels, some high profile demonstration busts that don't change a thing, and rampant complete ignorance of and ignoring of ip law on the street
copyright is dead. corporations killed it by not playing fair and only looking for some more $ at the expense of our common cultural riches. you can't measure common cultural riches on the corporate ledger, so it never got a fair reckoning in the boardroom. the result: complete disconnect between law and reality
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The #2 man in the DOJ, Paul McNulty, just submitted his resignation to Gonzales.
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.
Hrm, not sure to write you off as a troll or respond, but ah, what the hell, I'll respond. Like many of us, I'm not anti-copyright. I firmly support the rights of an artist or inventor to control their work for a limited time in order to profit from it. (For reference, I'm both. I hold two patents, and I'm a published semi-professional photographer in my spare time.) The problem is that copyright was originally a deal struck between the general populous and the creative folk - the deal being that the creators get limited exclusivity in exchange for the eventuality that their creation will fall into public domain. This is the foundation of the US Constitution's core intellectual property provision: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
The problem is that the deal has become lop-sided. There's no way that an author's great grandchildren holding the rights to his writings up to 70 years after he died promotes the progress of science or the useful arts. That's just called greed. The author doesn't create more if he knows his distant descendants will still be extorting money for almost a century after he kicks off.
Arguably, the public domain is also vitally important to progress. Think about all the inventions that would have been lost or the massive inflation of prices (due to royalties) if patents were essentially perpetual as well. Think about historians in 100 years, trying to figure out if they can reprint a photo out of fear that someone, somewhere will show up and demand royalties because the photo was taken by their great-great-grandfather. It's already a nightmare figuring out reproduction rights.
The system is broken, and stronger penalties won't fix it. Existing punishments are adequate if enforced against the real problem - large scale commercial piracy. Sane copyright terms, in conjunction with media companies not treating customers like felons, would be a good start.
Nope no corruption here... Not until you see Copyright violators getting more jail time than murderers and rapists... oh wait I think they already do (well the rapists atleast).
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
American politics: Don't download that pr0n movie illegally! Go rape that girl instead! You'll suffer less for it...
I'm really not sure where all the moral outrage is coming from because this is the consequence of an ownership society where privatization is blindly assumed to be, not just good, but the best thing.
This kind of posturing and eventual law enforcement activity where they'll perp-walk someone for some kind of copyright violation will get votes and most importantly raise campaign contributions.
I suspect more than a few slashdotters think that "the private sector does a better job at most things than the government.." The private sector is maximizing their revenues by enforcing its ownership rights and NOW it's a problem?
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
...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.
The Feds first obtained the power for asset seizures because they were going after some really evil drug lords. The American people went along with this because it was true, the Feds were definitely going after some really evil (as in kill the entire family as an example) bastards.
Then the Feds asked for more power, because they needed to get the supply chain, and grabbing a few Ferraris and yachts of really rich cocaine suppliers would help. The American people went along with this, too.
Then the Feds just assumed they had the power to grab the assets of the dealers. The American people didn't really think anything of this. After all, these drug dealers were bad people and besides, they were shooting up parts of the city in turf wars, so let the Feds grab the drug dealer BMWs with the really ugly custom wheels.
Then the Feds began seizing the assets of the drug users. Most Americans were under the impression the drug users were strung out heroine and crack junkies, so didn't give a shit. Only now Mr and Mrs Average American are learning otherwise, because their teenage son got pulled over in mom's car, and he had a joint on him, and the police are keeping the car.
I predicted this would happen at the very first stage. I was right. Even if the Feds swear up and down on a stack of bibles that they're only going to use this power on the big time commercial piracy operations, I won't believe them. Maybe today they mean it, but what about next tomorrow?
Fuck the government. They will ALWAYS abuse even the smallest amount of power. That's why we have to have the tightest possible controls on them as possible. If making it hard for them to abuse their job has the side affect of making it hard for them to do their job, so what. My rights and freedom are THAT FUCKING IMPORTANT.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Good point: Globally this may be the straw that breaks the back of the USA .... I am confident that ... others will eventually tell the USA, EU, UN, WorldBank ...
... such an ....
corporatist government strangle hold on IPR, patents
China, Russia, India
and the International Court to go fuck themselves with their dead-battery dildo.
But,it ain't like the USA has been able to figure anything out 12 months or 12
years out. Clueless courts, diplomacy, domestic policy, government
incompetent slime-ball pitiful gang of politicians have not been collected together
in one government since the Mao-China's "Cultural Revolution", Stalin's Purges,
Hitler's Perfect Aryan Religion
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
might as well make another huge swath of them criminals.
Honestly, it seems like they think of ways to make folks criminals and disenfranchise them.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
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.