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.'"

8 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. What does "stolen" mean? by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > ... 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.

  2. All Pau... by quickpick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Pointless by subl33t · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. These people need to get real by Finallyjoined!!! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. Who's Word is Copyright Czar? by RobBebop · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!!!
    1. Re:Who's Word is Copyright Czar? by kebes · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
  6. Heh by Cleon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  7. Each blow in assault is not a seperate offence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.