Slashdot Mirror


Bill Would Criminalize Attempted IP Infringement

ianare writes "H.R. 3155, the Intellectual Property Enhanced Criminal Enforcement Act of 2007, has been introduced in Congress by Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH). In most cases, the bill appears to simply double existing penalties. One big change however, is that people could now be charged with criminal copyright infringement even if such infringement has not actually taken place. Not surprisingly, the EFF has condemned the legislation."

7 of 211 comments (clear)

  1. FP? by dosius · · Score: 4, Informative

    Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty" ? Oh wait, that went out the door back in the 50s with McCarthyism.

    -uso.

    --
    What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
  2. open secrets by ArchieBunker · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  3. Not law yet by ianare · · Score: 5, Informative

    Keep in mind this bill is not passed into law (yet ??). So there is still time to try to stop it!

    Ya I know, online petition is not the best way. Write to your representatives if you can.

  4. Check those citatations! by westlake · · Score: 2, Informative
    The Cornell link has a small but dangerously misleading typographical error:

    506. Criminal offenses

    (a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -

    (1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, - OR -

    (2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000
    Copyright Law of the United States of America

    ILLINOIS MAN PLEADS GUILTY TO POSTING '24' TELEVISION SHOW ON INTERNET PRIOR TO FIRST BROADCAST ON FOX

    A Chicago man pleaded guilty today to a felony charge for posting the first four episodes of this season's "24" on the Internet before they were originally aired on the Fox television network earlier this year.
    Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section [July 2, 2007], The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act [February 18, 1998]

  5. Please follow EFF Link by PaddyM · · Score: 3, Informative

    Hi,
    Please follow the EFF link in the article to send a letter opposing the bill to your senators and members of congress. It's very important that this law not be allowed. Thanks.

  6. Revolving Door Not Contributions by dmccartney · · Score: 2, Informative

    According to the codified portions of Chabot's donations on OpenSecrets, he actually did not receive much money directly from the TV/Movies/Music industry. According to Chabot's 2006 Industry Breakdown it was his 19th greatest contributor, giving $31,000.

    However, a mischievous explanation of his manipulation can be found by looking to his revolving door(*). Chabot's recently departed Counsel, Etheridge Berkley, was named Vice President and Counsel of the NMPA (Nat'l Music Publishers Assoc'n) in March of 2005.

    For more, see Berkley's revolving door profile and the NMPA press release of Berkley's appointment[pdf] ("I know that the U.S. music publishing industry will find her to be a terrific champion on their behalf").

    (*) - "Revolving Door" in this context refers to those who go back-and-forth between working on K Street (lobbying) and Capital Hill (congressional committees). For more, see Time Magazine's The Lobbying Game: Why the Revolving Door Won't Close .

  7. Employees are not shielded from the law ... by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... I assume this bill will only apply to people and not companies as it says..

    criminalize some forms of "attempted infringement."

    Say for example a company steals some GPL work they won't see any Jail time and/or penalties but a person who steals the companies work will get the full force of this bill. Not that the two are related but its the best analogy I could think of.


    You are mistaken. A person is not shielded from criminal prosecution because they acted as an employee rather than an individual.