DOJ Opposes Extending DOJ Copyright Authority

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The White House has opposed the bipartisan bill that would create copyright cops on the grounds that it would cause the Department of Justice to end up 'serving as pro bono lawyers for private copyright holders.' And while they do occasionally prosecute criminal copyright infringement, they have no intention of dabbling with civil cases because, 'taxpayer-supported department lawyers would pursue lawsuits for copyright holders, with monetary recovery going to industry.' At this rate, the discovery of winged suiformes would appear to be imminent."

Comments

Yey! Victory!

[Big Nothing]

A victory caused by laziness is still a victory, right?

Re:Yey! Victory!

[Shin-LaC]

It is the best kind of victory.

Re:Yey! Victory!

[tinkertim]

A victory caused by laziness is still a victory, right?

Its one thing to permit far fetched litigation. Its another thing to supply all lawyers needed for free.

I think the RIAA realized .. if we're going to enforce copyright ... enlisting public defenders is probably __not__ going to help. So they quit pushing.

This is as reassuring as it is funny.

Re:Yey! Victory!

[Shakrai]

WTF? The White House doing something that isn't brain-dead stupid? Someone please pinch me. No, wait, don't I like this dream!

I'll get flamed hard core for saying this but GWB actually seems to be getting more reasonable as his term winds down. He actually seems to realize the limitations of his office and of American power now. Makes me wonder where we would be if this man had been the one in the White House seven years ago. I guess being POTUS for seven years is a humbling experience.

From the WHITE HOUSE?

[Hyppy]

Oh my gawd. This ... came from the White House?

I guess a broken clock is still right twice a day. Either that, or the absurdity of the proposal was glaringly obvious, even to them.

Re:Am I reading this right?

[morgan_greywolf]

"The Bush administration is opposing sweeping legislation granting it the ability to prosecute civil cases of copyright infringement" I mean, it's early so maybe I am sleep-hallucinating that the Bush Administration or DoJ actually refuses power.

They're not refusing power so much as refusing to take responsibility. And rightly so! Why should the taxpayers foot the legal bills for the **AA?

Re:Translation

[morgan_greywolf]

What does this say about the Democratic party when the bill breezes through their hands unfettered? And the Republicans are saying no?

It says that Hollywood has paid the Democrats rather well and not so much for the Republicans. But then again, it's been that way for a very long time -- Hollywood makes no secret of favoring the Democrats and Democratic causes. Some of the largest contributors to the Democratic Party and to Democratic candidates for office include some of the biggest names in Hollywood -- Steven Spielberg, David Geffen, etc.

New word proposal

[elrous0]

I would like to propose that we adopt a new word in the English language:

Buypartisan: A bill sponsored by politicians from both parties who are both being paid off.

True on both sides of the aisle

[tjstork]

I'll get flamed hard core for saying this but GWB actually seems to be getting more reasonable as his term winds down

The real deal is that you need to have the political party opposite of the President to be the one that holds Congress. Clinton of 1992 and 1993 was just terrible but once he lost the Congress and had to bend to the other side, partisanship went up, but the country was run far more effectively. Similarly, Bush being checked by the Democrats is actually more moderate because he has to be. When you have the other side of the aisle to contend with on a daily basis, you have to learn consensus to survive.