DOJ Doesn't Like the Idea of A Copyright Czar

sconeu writes "Seems as if the DOJ is not particularly happy about HR 4729, the 'Copyright Czar' bill. The Deputy AG told Congress that the current structure works quite effectively. 'Panel members also expressed concern over Section 104 of the bill, which would allow a copyright owner to collect statutory damages for each copyrighted work that is stolen. Detractors fear that this provision could result in protracted lawsuits ... Section 104, however, would penalize criminals on a per-song basis, so if someone pirated a motion picture soundtrack that had songs from 12 different artists, the pirate would be charged with 12 separate offenses and be subject to exorbitant fees.'"

Comments

Re:What does "stolen" mean?

[cduffy]

The RIAA provides services to various music publishers. It certainly doesn't receive money from copyright infringement suits.

Yes, it does. Money from copyright infringement suits run by the RIAA are used, by agreement of the labels, entirely to fund the RIAA's copyright enforcement efforts. That said, those efforts -- even the legal ones standing alone -- cost much, much more than they raise.

Re:With the way this country is going...

[Ambiguous Puzuma]

Fortunately, the RIAA has nothing to do with the Czar Czar.

Re:It this passes...

[Anonymous Coward]

This bill was introduced by the House Committee on the Judiciary: Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property

California has 53 reps. The committee has 6 of those, including the chair Howard Berman.
Florida has 25 reps. The committee has 3 of these.
9 of the 24 reps come from Florida (Disney) and California (Disney / Hollywood). Full list follows.

CA=6
FL=3
NC=2
OH=2
VA=2
TX=2
WI=1
GA=1
IN=1
NY=1
TN=1
UT=1
MI=1

Rep. Adam Schiff [D-CA]
Rep. Anthony Weiner [D-NY]
Rep. Betty Sutton [D-OH]
Rep. Brad Sherman [D-CA]
Rep. Christopher Cannon [R-UT]
Rep. Darrell Issa [R-CA]
Rep. Elton Gallegly [R-CA]
Rep. Frederick Boucher [D-VA]
Rep. Henry Johnson [D-GA]
Rep. Howard Berman [D-CA]
Rep. Howard Coble [R-NC]
Rep. James Sensenbrenner [R-WI]
Rep. John Conyers [D-MI]
Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX]
Rep. Melvin Watt [D-NC]
Rep. Mike Pence [R-IN]
Rep. Ric Keller [R-FL]
Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R-VA]
Rep. Robert Wexler [D-FL]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX]
Rep. Steve Cohen [D-TN]
Rep. Steven Chabot [R-OH]
Rep. Tom Feeney [R-FL]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA]

Re:Who's Word is Copyright Czar?

[kebes]

Captain Copyright, on the other hand, wearing a cape, a smile, and a costume that says "Don't steal MY music" would go over much better.

Well, it didn't go over too well in Canada.

A "Captain Copyright" character was indeed used for awhile in Canada to promote "rights of artists." Not surprisingly, the character and comics supporting a "copyright maximalist" slant, making no mention of fair dealing (Canadian version of fair use). Furthermore, there were a few incidents where it was shown that the Captain Copyright website was, in fact, infringing copyright.

Because of all the negative press, the character was withdrawn and the site shut down. So it looks like a cape-wearing copyright crusader is not long-lived. And luckily IP law will prevent anyone else from resurrecting that particular idea.

Re:These people need to get real

[cpt kangarooski]

Actually, some copyright infringement has been criminalized since 1897.

Here's what it consisted of: (I have put the relevant bits in bold)

An amendatory act relating to the remedies for unauthorized public performance of dramatic and musical compositions

AN ACT to amend title sixty, chapter three, of the Revised Statutes relating to copyrights. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section forty-nine hundred and sixty-six of the Revised Statutes be, and the same is hereby, amended so as to read as follows:

''SEC. 4966. Any person publicly performing or representing any dramatic or musical composition for which a copyright has been obtained, without the consent of the proprietor of said dramatic or musical composition, or his heirs or assigns, shall be liable for damages therefor, such damages in all cases to be assessed at such sum, not less than one hundred dollars for the first and fifty dollars for every subsequent performance, as to the court shall appear to be just. If the unlawful performance and representation be willful and for profit, such person or persons shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction be imprisoned for a period not exceeding one year. Any injunction that may be granted upon hearing after notice to the defendant by any circuit court of the United States, or by a judge thereof, restraining and enjoining the performance or representation of any such dramatic or musical composition may be served on the parties against whom such injunction may be granted anywhere in the United States, and shall be operative and may be enforced by proceedings to punish for contempt or otherwise by any other circuit court or judge in the United States; but the defendants in said action, or any or either of them, may make a motion in any other circuit in which he or they may be engaged in performing or representing said dramatic or musical composition to dissolve or set aside the said injunction upon such reasonable notice to the plaintiff as the circuit court or the judge before whom said motion shall be made shall deem proper; service of said motion to be made on the plaintiff in person or on his attorneys in the action. The circuit courts or judges thereof shall have jurisdiction to enforce said injunction and to hear and determine a motion to dissolve the same, as herein provided, as fully as if the action were pending or brought in the circuit in which said motion is made.''

''The clerk of the court, or judge granting the injunction, shall, when required to do so by the court hearing the application to dissolve or enforce said injunction, transmit without delay to said court a certified copy of all the papers on which the said injunction was granted that are on file in his office.''

[29 Stat. 481 (Jan. 6, 1897)]

Now it is worth noting that back then, not all infringements were criminal; nor has this ever been the case, and it even won't be under the recent bill. But the penalties have expanded over the years, and what constitutes criminal infringement has expanded as well.