Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
> ... would allow a copyright owner to collect statutory
> damages for each copyrighted work that is stolen.
So if I buy a Metallica CD, and someone swipes it, Metallica gets the money when the thief is caught?
Bizarre.
I gotta be honest, I was at best buy and I didn't see any particular movie or CD that interested me and I had a $5 off coupon to spend. Movie, music, and TV executives take note: I'm done. You can keep your ball and play by your rules, but I'm going to go home and do something constructive, like build a book shelf, or read a book, and maybe stop, look up at this beautiful world we live in and decide I don't need your crap to enjoy life.
It will be a huge turn for the federal government in US history. Meaning, this is a blantant example of politicians wanting to use the federal government resources to help primarily large businesses maximize and enforce their revenues. Piracy, like it or not, provides a market balance where in many industries it did not exist before, and most of the politicians know this.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Abuse of the court system to slam 'Intellectual Property' offenders benefits corporations.
Taken past a certain point, though, it impairs the ability of the court system to be responsive, and brings massive costs to the agencies which have to support the infrastructure.
We're getting to that point.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
The American drug Czars have done soooo well haven't they? A copyright Czar is SURE to end all copyright violations!
Yanks: DO something about your electoral system! It's time to move back to Democracy from Corporate Oligarchy.
Copyright infringement is a civil offence. Nuff said.
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
We already have laws that punish real bootlegging pirates. Walk down the street in most major metropolitan areas and you see people making money off other peoples hard work. Would those people be charged with both the original crime AND a crime for EACH of the copyrights they violated to sell a five dollar version of a 20 dollar RIAA CD?
This isn't a bill written to make the constituents happy... I'm glad the DOJ is doing more than following along.
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
We're going to end up with a "Czar Czar". Last thing we need is more bureaucrats with dictatorial titles.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
?????
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHHHA
BAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Oh my god it hurts...
BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
Yeah, for now.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
"We dont' want to be the MPAA's bitch; if Congress likes that kind of thing, great for them, but no agent or prosecutor is going to make their career chasing college students and grandmothers. They can do their own dirtywork - we're busy with terrorism and drugs."
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Who chose the wording "Copyright Czar"? That's akin to asking members of Congress to vote on killing puppies. No, they won't kill the puppies and they won't support a "Czar" of any kind.
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.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
If the "We Don't Torture, but Oppose Anti-Torture Legislation" DOJ thinks a piece of legislation is a little too heavy-handed, Congress should damn well get the message that it's time to reconsider.
Gifts for Geeks - Stuff that really matters!
The NET ("No Electronic Theft") Act made copyright infringement criminal in some cases. It looks like it was intended to criminalize people trading copies of copyrighted works, because it made it criminal to infringe upon copyright if you were profiting from it. And then it added to the definition of "profiting" that you could be exchanging a copyrighted work in exchange for other copyrighted works.
Mind you, IANAL, and the DoJ apparently has better things to do than go after low-level copyright infringers, it seems like congress wants to change that to help Hollywood.
As for the DoJ, it sounds like they're against this primarily because they don't want to lose power. I never thought I'd be glad to see petty politics come into play, but I'm honestly glad and I agree with them that a copyright czar is a waste of time.
But the DoJ is also sensible enough only to care about huge pirate rings selling bootleg copies, not Joe Infringer downloading at home. Hollywood hates that, obviously, but the DoJ has real work to do and I hope they keep doing it.
Or do the politicians think that we won't blame them if the conviction rates for real crimes like homicide drop so that they can divert the DoJ's manpower to catch people who infringe upon copyrights at home? I'll sure as hell blame them if that happens.
How is it that copyright receives a higher standard of punishment than traditional crime. Maybe because the RIAA holds itself more important than people who really get hurt.
If someone is assaulted they cannot prosecute the assailant for each punch/stab/whatever....
They are entitled to fair protections but the system must make the redress fair as well. Each $2.99 song is a million dollars by their accounting. Now they want each instance to give them a retrial and more ability to punish the poor with larger threatened lawsuits. This is not trial by judge or jury anymore. They are fighting for trial by the inefficiency of our judicial system. They want to make the court system worse and more expensive while they use it as a hammer to win settlements - out of court. And who picks up the tab??? The country.
Go back to the initial copyright as set out by the constitution. Remove the extensions and emphasize the benefits of a global distribution system that costs peanuts to maintain.
Of course, because ripping a DVD and putting it on your video iPod is stealing.
It's not about stealing, dipshit. It's about choice.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
you can dig in your heels and fight it tooth and nail, until reality passes you by
or you can adapt gracefully, and keep right on swimming
adapt, or die
i mean these are some pretty fantastic death throes we are witnessing now
riaa, mpaa: in 5 years i want to see shocktroopers on the street with congressionally mandated shoot to kill on sight orders for anyone caught singing christmas carols without prior authorization
that's the logical progression of your denial
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. We have a new set of laws that proscribes MASSIVE penalties for intellectual property violations. People need to defend themselves from this new threat!
2. We have tens of thousands of bored lawyers in this country, not to mention the ones graduating from college. They need money and swanky cars because they are Lawyers!
3. We have an industry that wants to make money off of music. All music. Everywhere. They need people to go after these infringers!
So, if these laws go into effect, we have two sets of lawyers, the Defenders and the Aggressors. The Defenders are primarily concerned with making money defending copyright infringer. If your max fine for violating copyright is around, say $50,000, wouldn't you rather spend $10,000 on a lawyer who guaranteed he would win, or your money back? Or if you are a business, wouldn't you shell out $150,000 for a lawyer to avoid the publicity and likely 1 Million in damages?
Aggressors would be the ones who actively go after the infringers, and would basically be mercenaries under the employ of the MPAA or RIAA. Investigations would net infringers, which would be passed on to the Aggressors. Considering their take-home on a trial would be a portion of the damages awarded, they would file as many cases as possible. If a few get settled, so be it, but may would go through and they would collect.
And here's the kicker, both Defenders and Aggressors have to serve the best interests of their client, which means settlement, and a lot of it. If a Defender manages to settle for $20k, he's just saved his client $30K. If an Aggressor settles for $20K, his client gets $20K free and clear on the ILLEGAL USE OF A SINGLE INFRINGEMENT without the hassle of a trial. Less attorney fees of course. If these guys file 30 cases like this a year, they are pulling back enough money to live on easily. If they build a firm around it, they have enough money to become tin gods.
When are we going to learn that in the nation of Capitalism, nothing is a law, it's just another business opportunity? Once, a long time ago, lawyers were defenders of freedom and justice, providing a check against government corruption and abuses of power. While some still are, the majority are so in bed with the government they have batter on hand for pancakes in the morning.
~Sticky
/First, the lawyers.
//Then, the politicians..
///When the revolution comes...
Back in the 20's the christian right got the volstead act.
Instead of curbing drinking, it criminalized everyone and resulted in the proliferation of outright poisonous liquor (things like formaldehyde in it), rampant organized crime, and rampant corruption.
The interesting thing was.. the christian right ADMITTED THIS and congress repealed it.
Now let's look at the nixon drug laws, which at the time were ostensibly designed to criminalize the protestors he hated. Drugs are still widely proliferated, but instead of being highly regulated, safer (granted they ARE kinda bad for you, but so is booze and tobacco), and taxed. Further, people would feel safer seeking treatment knowing they wouldn't be arrested.
Instead of admitting their failure, the federal government continues to spend billions in a vietnam on our very shores and against our own people.
Now theyre pulling the same damn thing with the DMCA.. the sad part is they continue to do this DESPITE the fact even record execs have outright admitted, at least between the RIAA's spin cycles, that p2p isn't going away, and the DMCA isn't helping.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I thought it wasn't so much a matter of wanting free songs, as much as not finding any songs worth paying for. The same goes for most of the current crop of movies. To top that off I already get quite a bit of music and movies for free (or at least already paid for) with my cable/internet package.
We are all just people.
"Back in the 20's the christian right got the volstead act."
Applying the term "christian right" to a political movement before the 70's is like calling something a "genocide" that happened before WWII - it uses a term that didn't exist at the time of the event, not to describe it, but to leverage current emotional and intellectual trends to get the reaction the writer wishes.
In other words, trolling.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
RI/MPAA: "you can buy our content and it may or may not play in your player, no you can't get a refund if you opened it, no you can't pirate it onto your iPod, no you can't play it in public so close your car window..." Consumer: "Okay...I'm going to go do something else then." RI/MPAA: "You can't do that. You have to buy my stuff. You can buy multiple copies so you can play it on everything you have..." Consumer: "Nah, its okay...I'm kinda having fun bike riding with my kids and hearing the wind blowing and the trees rustling..." RI/MPAA: "We have a CD like that! See? look you can buy this CD and listen to the wind blowing and trees rustling..." Consumer: "No really, its okay. I'm enjoying spending time laughing and talking to friends." RI/MPAA: "well, you can go watch a movie with friends! but you have to buy a copy for each person..." Consumer: "hehe, its okay. We enjoy just talking about how our families are doing, reliving the past, and looking forward to the future." RI/MPAA: "ummm, you sure you don't want to play a video game or something?" Consumer: "Actually we're about to play a game of texas hold'em...you want to play?" RI/MPAA: "Sure! I have it for the 360, PC, PS3..." Consumer: "nah, I'm just screwing with you. Go play with your lawyer buddies, I'm sure they're going to be bored once all my friends get tired of your antics."
I write mine every time I read about one of these monstrosity bills before congress.
She never writes back or calls, so I can only gather that I have no representation in congress.
I'm informed about copyright issues. I wish my congressperson was.
They're using their grammar skills there.
It's almost like the authorities want to protect the content producers so much because they supply the alternative drug, that is the endless stream of bland music, films & TV that subdues the people and stops them thinking of revolution.
A free man makes his own choices. The effects of prohibition are organized crime and massive profits for the black marketeers who care nothing for their victims. We already have a system in place to distribute drugs just as potent, and often more potent than meth, crack and opiates. It's called prescription medication, and those drugs share the same problems of addiction and loss of freedom. Yet instead of receiving your drugs from a gangbanger and funding organized crime you are visiting a doctor who can help inform you about your situation, and get you in touch with counseling and rehabilitation services.
The choice is simple, continue fighting a war against your own citizens or simply allow the people who already deal with powerful drugs the ability to control the situation. There is only one sane option, unfortunately we are far from arriving at it.