Making The Justice Dept. A Copyright Busybody 381
This bill, put forward by your friends and mine, Msrs. Leahy and Hatch, would task the JD with filing civil actions against "pirates" - essentially putting your tax dollars to work bringing civil actions against college students in the name of the very largest Copyright holders, allowing them even more spare pocket change to spend lobbying to restrict your already shrinking online freedoms. A choice snippet from the floor: "For too long, Federal prosecutors have been hindered in their pursuit of pirates, by the fact that they were limited to bringing criminal charges with high burdens of proof..."
And it gets better: "In the long run, I believe that we must find better mechanisms to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens--our children--are not being constantly tempted to infringe the copyrights that have made America a world leader in the production of creative works." Hold on to your wallets folks, they're telling us to "think of the children" again..."
Copyright should become a tax (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Copyright should become a tax (Score:5, Interesting)
I was thinking the exact same thing, only it should not only be tied to the asset valuation, but to time as well. For example, for the first 5 years of a copyright, you don't get taxed - after that, you get assessed an "Intellectual Property Tax".
The problem with the idea is that asset taxes are inherently evil - so evil that I'm not sure that I'd want to create a new bureaucracy to handle the assessment, levying, and paperwork. It's bad enough we have property taxes (and for very unlucky folks), business asset taxes (ie, I buy a computer, pay a sales tax, and for the next 5 years, I have to pay 3% of the remaining value on the computer to the local county). Can you imagine some auditor going into the library of congress, and sending off letters to authors, playwrights, etc., arguing that their work is worth $X, even though it's been out of print for years, and that they owe back taxes?
On the other hand, if we can't get a limitation to copyright duration, then we should be taxing the hell out of it, so at least SOME public good comes out of it.
When copyright and IP laws are torn all to hell, blame the MPAA and the RIAA for trying to push the envelope and just not being smart enough to leave things alone (just as traditional junk mailers and call centers can blame spammers and telemarketers for the woes that have befallen them as a result of super-sensitizing people to ad-interruptions.)
3% per year?!? (Score:2, Funny)
I have to pay 3% of the remaining value on the computer to the local county
Good God, where do you live, Soviet Russia?
Yikes!
People around here are damned near ready to go to war over 0.095% per year.
Oops - make that 0.95% per year. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Copyright should become a tax (Score:4, Interesting)
What a load of garbage: you want to tax people for merely having copyrighted works? Not only would be virtually impossible to implement, but would create a huge disincentive to create copyright works (I'd stop writing informal papers, people would stop creating open source software - all for fear that the tax department levy bills on them).
As it stands, (a) if you make money out of the works you have to pay tax anyway, and (b) if you are a business, the accounting rules are increasingly requiring that valuable intangibles are accounted for as assets anyway.
Re:Copyright should become a tax (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Copyright should become a tax (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think that is a workable model. The idea behind automatic copyright of works is that it protects works created by average citizens. In a system that requires registration, all that happens is that large organisations with financial ability will ensure that all of their works are registered, and all the average citizens won't - finding out that their mass of web content (as per Pew study) gets ripped off and used by someone else. The rest of the world survived for much longer than the US with automat
Re:Copyright should become a tax (Score:3, Insightful)
This is seriously short-sighted. It has caused a gigantic problem. Copyrights ideally should only be granted to those works which would not otherwise have been created. It is purely harmful to the public where superfluous.
When works are automatically copyrighted, that means virtually all works. And the large majority of those works would have been created otherwise -- hence the tremendous harm that ensues.
While in a proper system, people mig
Re:Copyright should become a tax (Score:3, Interesting)
And those problems are ?
> While in a proper system, people might not initially be aware that they need to register, the vast majority of them likely couldn't care less.
No, not until they find that their works are being used by other people without any compensation. Nor until 20 years later when the work becomes relevant for some other reason.
> The US got along GREAT when it required registration, and yet everything's been going
Re:Copyright should become a tax (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that a hell of a lot of works that ought to be in the public domain are not.
No, not until they find that their works are being used by other people without any compensation. Nor until 20 years later when the work becomes relevant for some other reason.
Well, as to the first point, I suppose that the author will know better the next time, although typically it's not as though they'd be likely to get compensation anyhow, since the expenses of working with authors te
Re:Copyright should become a tax (Score:4, Insightful)
That way, we don't create tax criminals, and Apple II software from 1978, that wasn't making money for anyone anyway, is public domain.
Simple, doesn't rob anyone of the ability to make money, fair, maybe even elegant. So you know there is no chance in hell of it ever becoming a law.
Re:Copyright should become a tax (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Copyright should become a tax (Score:3, Insightful)
This is only a good point if the law is implemented poorly. The original poster suggested that the fee should be tied to the revenue generated by the IP. This is a great option, and would solve any problems for GPL'd software. As suggested, the first term would be free, then there would be a sliding scale based on revenue. Freely distributed media (software, books, whatever), since it doesn't generate revenue, would not have a renewal fee, but would require
Re:Copyright should become a tax (Score:3, Insightful)
In any case, copyright right now is indeed forever, so any improvement over that is good. What was happening is that patents and copyrights were being given out pre
Re:Copyright should become a tax (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Copyright should become a tax (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Copyright should become a tax (Score:4, Interesting)
I liked this idea, and of course the costs should be set so it isn't economically possible to buy a copyright for 10 million years.
Re:Copyright should become a tax (Score:5, Interesting)
What if it was a monotonically increasing percentage of revenue? Like a sales tax, but it gets more each decade. For instance:
This way, if Disney is still making substantial revenue from an old work, they pay a proportionally high fee.
There should probably also be an exponentially increasing minimum "copyright maintenance" fee, to create an incentive to put works that generate no revenue into the public domain.
It seems reasonable to me that lengthy copyright protection should be a paid service. Copyright seems like a system of getting something for nothing (which isn't always a bad thing, but current copyright laws have become ridiculous).
-jim
Re:Fees (Score:3, Insightful)
Napster could still legally shuffle the old version around, after all.
Most importantly, and no one seems to realize this, they should be required to publically release keys so they (now) public domain works are accessible. Else none of the rest really matters, they might as well keep copyrights forever.
Re:Copyright should become a tax (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't they already effectively have that as it is?
Re:Copyright should become a tax (chicken or egg?) (Score:3, Interesting)
OR, the more you consume copyrighted works, the more you should pay, no?
Re:No (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the point was, there's no difference.
A tax on copyright holders (those that have an income stream from customers of those copyrighed works, at least) will simply be accounted for as a business cost and added to the price their customers pay.
Re:No (Score:3, Informative)
Needless to say, there's already a tax on copyright holders for money that they make off their copyright -- it's called "income tax."
Re:Income from copyrighted works is already taxed (Score:3, Insightful)
Its less about collecting taxes then it is about restricting the government enforced monopoly called "copyright".
Your economic analysis is faulty (Score:3, Insightful)
If Disney gets it out of the vault, they can make $X million in gross revenue, with $C million in costs. It's the judgement of Disney's management that $X is less than $C. If $X were more than $C then Disney, profit-maximizing corporation that they are, would distribute Pinocchio and make a profit of ($X-$C) that way.
Your proposal is to inc
Outsourcing lawsuits... (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait a minute.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wait a minute.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Wait a minute.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually the EFF has a pretty good idea. Since I don't download music, I wouldn't have to pay. With this RIAA proposal, they wouldn't even have to sue people anymore, now, the suits would be instigated by the DoJ using my tax money. I'd have to pay for the lawsuits against kids.
I doubt the EFF idea will be adopted since it's so sensible and the RIAA won't stop until they can charge everyone three dollars for every song they ever listen too.
The behavior of the members of the RIAA has been exactly th
Can the "little guy" benefit from IP? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Can the "little guy" benefit from IP? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Can the "little guy" benefit from IP? (Score:2)
Often a letter (even a friendly one) can help.
Also, note that federally registered copyrights award legal fees (as opposed to 'defacto' copyrights).
This should have been one of Bush's priorities (Score:5, Interesting)
Reform should not stop here though. The Bush Administration should make it a priority to strip the FDA of most of its discressionary powers to block drugs it thinks "don't do enough" and to give it more resources to expedite the processing of drug safety tests so that drug companies can profit more easily (thus they don't have to charge as much).
wouldn't that benefit the GPL? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:wouldn't that benefit the GPL? (Score:5, Informative)
First a clarification: This potential law is about civil law enforcement by the government.
And for the opinion, since you asked: The government should never under any circumstances take a side in a civil dispute. The entire concept of the distinction between civil and criminal disputes is that in civil law, person A is 51% right and person B is 49% right, and noone knows before the end of the case which side is which. This is referred to as "preponderance of evidence". Given that, which side should the government be backing in a given civil dispute? Neither.
Criminal law is the sole domain of government law enforcement.
Now tell me, really... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is /., not Fantasyland.
[Fantasyland is believed to be a registered trademark of the Walt Disney Corporation. It is used here without permission, but concurrent with the United States Supreme Court decision regarding Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc (1994) [findlaw.com] and the copyright laws of the United States protecting parody and satire.]
Reminds me of a line from a movie about Cuba (Score:3, Interesting)
Woman: "Cuba only loves its children until they grow up."
Re:Reminds me of a line from a movie about Cuba (Score:2)
Protect the rights of the unborn the American fanatic says!
After they are born though deny them healthcare and take away their mom's welfare and removing funding from their schools and...
That's not entirely true. If the fetus doesn't attain the ripe age of 17 we can't send it overseas to die fighting for oil and empire. Rest assured they'll keep it alive long enough for that to happen.
Changing the bargin (Score:5, Insightful)
I always found it odd that this post gets protection of my live time plus seventy years but a new drug only gets seventeen years plus a few extra months the lawyers cheat out of the system at the end of the seventeen years. If something that reduces suffering is only worth 17 years maybe the founding fathers were right to put the copyright term at 28 years.
Not at all... (Score:5, Insightful)
"to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
The deal is that they get the monopoly for the act of creating their works and inventions. There's never been any "principal" decision of who is to enforce it, as far as I know. Certainly, by their right to secure the monopoly, making the government enforce it is fully constitutional.
I think the government should step back and look at what the goal is: To promote the creation of new works and inventions. The expectancy to make money is a driving factor. But if I write a book today, do I expect money in 2150? (which would hopefully be life + 70 for me) No.
Ask any movie producer, book author, music artist when they expect to make money off their work. Sure, sometimes a book like LotR can become massively long after it was written, but did JRR Tolkien make it because it'd be a wildly movie triology in the next millenium? Hell no.
There's two kinds of copyright. One that promotes the creation of new works, and one that promotes the hoarding of existing IP because some works will become "classics". The latter is a cancer that only contributes to making artificial profit, not to advance science nor the arts.
That is why copyright should be cut, massively. A few decades should be more than enough to put it through any normal life cycle (like e.g. cinema -> rental -> dvd sales -> premium channels -> normal channels -> reruns).
What is a concern, is the "pollution" of the setting, like e.g. the Star Trek universe. However, make it real simple. Only what is expired from copyright is expired. E.g. if TOS didn't contain the Borg, but Voyager does, they are copyrighted as long as Voyager.
But if you want to take Capt. Kirk on adventures to meet some completely new and unknown aliens, you're free to do that. If the "original" can't introduce enough new things (new characters, new plots, new items) to live with that during say, 30 years?, well they don't deserve it.
Kjella
This is a natural progression for these industries (Score:5, Insightful)
It is only natural that they feed like pigs at the trough that contains the tax receipts. Industries built on theft don't stop doing it once they become "successful", they do more of it and on a much grander scale.
In other news..... (Score:4, Funny)
Copyrights, trademarks, and patients (Score:3, Interesting)
I have had many ideas I could not patent, trademark, or copyright because I could not afford to. Plus their database is hard to search, one of them is still in telnet form! When will these databases get into the 21st century?
My former employer said they made 40 patients based on my ideas. I tried to search on the employer's name, but that is not an available option. I searched on my name, which came up with nothing. So obviously they registered the patents in someone else's name as the inventor. Which I later found is not valid to do, as I am the inventor of those ideas.
Give a discount to people based on income level for the fees. For Pete's sake they can gather the info from the IRS for people and the SEC for companies. Also have an idea tax that taxes a small fee for revenue used for the ideas, so the government can collect some money as well.
Re:Copyrights, trademarks, and patients (Score:2)
Asignee Search = an\[assigne name here]
Inventor Search = in\[inventor name here]
Re:Copyrights, trademarks, and patients (Score:2)
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) (Score:2)
And I wouldn't expect Vermont's other Senator, Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.), to have many friends in the majority party either.
Remember this next time you're chanting, "Anybody But Bush!"
Re:Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) (Score:3, Insightful)
It's an interesting point....however, when your house is burning down, you don't start fixing the leaky faucet or the peeling paint or the creaky floorboards. You put out the fire.
you do realize this promotes.... (Score:3, Insightful)
i.e. free software...
the more complexity that is built up, the sooner the ever advancing world will move forward beyond such getting in the way complexity.
a simple matter of the ever increasing velocity of reaching new things for us all to benefit from and/or enjoy.
From the bill (Score:2)
G) the role of the victim copyright owner in providing relevant information for enforcement actions and in the computation of damages;
Not only do we have to pay for the investigations and lawsuits, we have to pay to train people to do them. Furthermore, there seems to be limited legislation setting or limiting the amounts in such suits and that the copyright holder may have the power to decide on amounts. It seems that now some of th
Think of the children indeed... (Score:2)
I realize that artists need some sort of protection, but it's really the entrenched ones who worry about this. A friend of mine is a freelance composer of original music for software, radio, TV and film productions [lucasmaciel.com], and he's got samples of his work on his site that he's just giving away. Of course, they are copyrighted and if you wa
What rips my jocks (Score:5, Insightful)
Such a shame.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Somebody else here has already pointed out that "open music" is about you going out, playing an instrument, singing, writing lyrics and tunes, putting it all together and distributing it under the terms you want.
The "file-sharing" model is to open enterprise what warezing Win XP is to downloading your favourite Linux distro.
So, instead of trying to take other people's music and distributing it without their permission, how about you actually try and create music people want and give it away under terms like the GPL, much in the same way you do with software now?
No? Why not? No, seriously, I want to know why not...
Re:Such a shame.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never bought a pirated DVD in my life. Nor have I ever downloaded a movie from the internet, P2P or whatever.
A
You never played monopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
Destroying copyright doesn't destroy the outlets. It still takes an expensive FCC license to get a tv
Some questions (Score:5, Interesting)
#2 Most other crimes carry the "burden of proof" on the prosecutor. Why is this one different? Hey there, John Doe is using Kazaa, even though we found no MP3 files on his hard drive besides the ones he bought or has a right too, the fact that he has Kazaa shows that he "Might" be sharing said files with others. We have no evidence of the sharing, but the fact that he uses Kazaa is enough for us to brand him a pirate! Slap an eyepatch and peg-leg on him and send him to jail!
#3 So what pirates are they targeting? While a majority of the pirated copies come from other countries such as China, Russia, etc, we have no legal power over there, so instead we shall target teenagers and college students who don't know any better and only want to share songs with friends, etc. "Sc*w fair use, we got the copyright laws rewritten to exclude it. Jane Doe is using part of a Metallica song in a college presentation, so we will lock her up and throw away the key!
#4 How much money earned is enough? Oh sure we make a ton of money selling $20USD CDs that cost us 50 cents to make and ship, and only give $2USD to the artists, but we could be making more if the John Does and Jane Does of the world stop using our songs without permission and sharing them, while they are promoting our songs and possibly generating more sales, we have a potential to earn even more income by suing these individuals.
Why civil suits (Score:5, Interesting)
In a criminal case, the government must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". In a civil suit, they must only prove the preponderance of the evidence.
In a criminal case, if the defendant is acquited, the goverment must return the defendant's belongings. In a civil case, the government can seize a person's belongings and the defendant must prove his innocence to get them back.
The most significant difference is that in a criminal case, if the defendant can not afford an attorney, the government must provide one. In a civil case, the defendant is left to fend for himself.
Re:Why civil suits (Score:3, Informative)
The government rarely brings civil cases. Criminal cases are "The People vs. XXXX", as the people are the ones who were harmed, and are always brought by the government.
Civil cases are always "XXX vs. YYY", and are always brought by individuals (legally, corporations are individuals, which is why I don't need to qualify that statement). The government does not bring civil suits, for the most part, except when the harm was done to them.
I just love the logic ... (Score:4, Funny)
"In the long run, I believe that we must find better mechanisms to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens--our children--are not being constantly tempted to infringe the copyrights..."
Yes, and the best way to make sure little Billy doesn't become a mean ol' evil pirate is to have the DOJ prosecute his ass the moment he downloads Barney's latest hit ... :)
(Not that people who listen to Barney's latest hit shouldn't be prosecuted, obviously ... but for different reasons, damnit!)
Not sure this is constitutional (Score:4, Interesting)
Article III Section 2 of the US Constitution says that the judicial power applies to "cases" and "Controversies." Under current constitutional doctrine, this means that in order to get into federal courts on a civil matter, there is a requirement that the person bringing the suit have standing: He has to have an injury which can be remedied by the court.
I don't think that the Justice Department would have standing because it neither (1) has been injured nor (2) is an organization litigating the rights of its members, who have been injured -- this is about what happens when the RIAA sues people.
IANAL (yet...), so don't consider this legal advice. But, the whole thing just seems a bit fishy.
Re:Not sure this is constitutional (Score:3, Informative)
You're All Missing The Point (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone here is talking about whether piracy is right or wrong. Duh. It's wrong. That's not the point.
This law would give the government the authority to punish people based on a preponderance of evidence. There has always been a distinction between civil and criminal law. When there is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but two people are still in dispute, the government is not allowed to get involved, because they tip the balance too much. If there is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, how is the government supposed to decide which side to support? This law is saying in effect, "whenever we're not sure if someone has been wronged or not, the government should back party A." It is completely antithetical to the distinction beetween civil and criminal law.
Hmmm.... somebody has got something wrong here... (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's say that someone breaks into my home, and steals my TV. Right now, I can enlist the help of law enforcement, who might catch the person responsible for the theft. If they do, provided I want to pursue this, they could then go ahead and prosecute the thief, and if found guilty would then serve a punishment. I might not get my TV back, but the person who stole it did not 'get a free lunch'.
The same principle seems to be applied here to copyrights. The thing I need to understand, is the theft of a copyright a civil matter, or a criminal matter? If it is a civil matter, then the DoJ certainly does not need to get involved, they have enough to do in the criminal arena. Let the RIAA, the MPAA and all their cronies fund their own lawsuits, just like everyone else who has to fund a civil lawsuit. But if the theft of a copyright is now a criminal matter, and is to be considered a felony, then I see no reason why the person who has a precious artifact stolen has recourse to the police and the DoJ whereas someone who stole a copyright does not have access to these resources - especially if the consequences for the person who stole the artifact is the same for those who stole the copyright.
I personally don't care too much for the RIAA and MPAA's strong-arm tactics, but copyright certainly needs reform. Perhaps there needs to be a two tier copyright system, there would be Copyright I and Copyright II. I would envisage Copyright I to be like existing copyright. It would expire 90 years after the death of the creator, and the Copyright I holders would have recourse to the civil courts for enforcing their rights. It would be cheap to get, but expensive to enforce. There would also be Copyright II. Copyright II would be more expensive to maintain, and as someone mentioned earlier, yes there would be a 'tax', maybe a yearly tax. The Copyright would be tradeable, and would be in force as long as the 'tax' is paid on it (so the likes of Mickey Mouse would be protected forever). Copyright II would however, because of the increased fees that Copyright II holders would pay, would have recourse to law enforcement and the Department of Justice in order to enforce those copyrights, and theft of the copyrights would enjoy penalties like that in criminal theft cases.
That would be my simplistic way of reforming the copyright system.
Mark.
counterfeiting and piracy brings this on (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, the figures I've seen from customs activities border enforcement show that detected counterfeit computer software and music and related multimedia have increased 400% in the last couple of years, and piracy rates in this area are 40%.
When you have _actual evidence_ of this level of lost income, which for the government translates into lost taxes, then you understand why the government is stepping in and helping.
I'm sure if the figures were much lower, the government couldn't care less.
Senator Leahy's words on this (Score:5, Informative)
Thank you for contacting me about intellectual property protections. Although we disagree on this issue, it is good to
hear from you.
Throughout my career, I have been concerned about the theft of intellectual property and the effect it has on
innovation. Protection of digital content is just one aspect of this effort. On March 23, 2004, the Senate Judiciary
Committee held a hearing on physical piracy, entitled "Counterfeiting and Theft of Tangible Intellectual Property:
Challenges and Solutions," at which the Committee examined the harmful effects of stealing another's creation.
Reasonable estimates show that the U.S. economy loses between $200 billion and $250 billion annually to piracy and
counterfeiting. At that hearing the Committee heard from a representative of Burton Snowboards, which employs 350
people in Vermont. That witness reported that knock-off Burton products have been found in multiple countries, and
fake goods often turn up on internet auction sites.
The improper use of Burton's trademarks is illegal, it is unethical, and it robs the company of revenues it should
rightfully reap but that others siphon off. In the 104th Congress, I introduced the Anticounterfeiting Consumer
Protection Act of 1995, which gave law enforcement additional tools to fight counterfeiting and which became a public
law. I am currently looking at additional legislation that would help hard working Vermonters protect the goods they
produce.
Likewise, downloading music without paying for it, and without the copyright holder's permission prevents artists,
authors, musicians - and those that work behind the scenes to produce creative content - from realizing the benefits
they deserve.. In order for the promise of new technologies to be fully realized, high quality digital content needs
to be easy to use and portable, and I am glad to see that several companies are now offering legal alternatives that
are meeting with success. This is a development I continue to encourage.
While illegally downloading music is wrong, I do not think that handcuffs for copyright infringers should be the
government's only option. That is why, on March 25, 2004, I introduced the "Protecting Intellectual Rights Against
Theft and Expropriation (PIRATE) Act." I do not believe in a "one size fits all" system of justice, and the PIRATE Act
will provide needed flexibility by allowing the Justice Department to pursue civil penalties for copyright infringement
when criminal penalties are not appropriate.
Thank you again for contacting me about this important issue, and please keep in touch.
Patrick Leahy
United States Senator
http://leahy.senate.gov
Since counterfeit snowboards seemed totally off the wall to me, here was my reply:
Dear Senator Leahy:
Thank you for your response. It does not, however, show consideration of
many of the most pressing issues in "intellectual property." Please detail
what you are doing to:
- Roll back copyright terms to the reasonable period envisioned by the
writers of the Constitution
- Allow Web "radio" to have the same rights to broadcast music as
over-the-air stations, without the additional fees for using the music
which are currently assessed, which only serve to enforce the broadcast
monopolies while restricting artist access to the public
- Preserve the "fair use" rights that have long been in copyright law
against the large corporations working to remove or negate them through
using encryption technologies
- Undo the chilling effects of the DCMA on free technological development,
where it prevents normal testing and reverse-engineering of encryption
schemes
- Restore restrictions on the number of radio or television stations that
may be owned by any single corporation (surely you are aware of the
political disaster that results f
Well written! Just one mistake I saw... (Score:3, Insightful)
A politicians conscience is indistinguishable from his bankbook.
Does Leahy work for Eisner? (Score:4, Interesting)
So, see how [eagleforum.org] Eisner [mensnewsdaily.com] has rewarded Leahy [rutlandherald.com] for his work on the Mickey Mouse copyright extension [ascap.com] and other acts of kindness.
A Scary, Stupid, and Grossly Unfair Law (Score:5, Insightful)
It's scary because it provides the federal government with a very effective way to crush political free speech. Why? First, keep in mind that, unlike many countries, including some other democracies, we do not and cannot have seditious libel laws--meaning the government cannot openly ban criticism. For that, we can thank the First Amendment and our culture of independence.
But recall that any effective criticism of the actions of government agencies and politicians will require fair use quotations. Under current law, the government cannot use copyright to attack that sort of unwanted speech. Copyright infringement lawsuits are civil lawsuits, initiated and (even more important) funded by private entities. This law would allow the government to create an "enemies list" to be attacked on alleged copyright violations and open up the entire resources of the federal government in those lawsuits.
Keep in mind that the government does not have to win these cases, it simply has to file a lawsuit to create an enormous burden on its critics. (This is a bit like both the Nixonian and Clintonian administrations using the IRS to attack political opponents.) And remember too that the government doesn't have to sue over the specific book or media production that criticized the government. It can sue in some totally unrelated area. It can crush an opponent without ever appearing to violate the First Amendment. That is what I mean by scary.
Second, the law is stupid because it demonstrates no awareness of just how cluttered, contradictory and filled with gray areas present day copyright law is. Yes, there are areas where the law is not gray, republishing without permission a recent best-selling book for instance. But there's no need for the federal government to intervene in those areas. Civil suits already work quite well there. Will the government intervene in more ambigious areas? If it does, it has taken sides when it shouldn't. If it doesn't the there are lots of people, particularly impoverished authors and publishers, who are being denied help but are forced to pay taxes to fund lawsuits the government does choose to initiate.
Finally, the law is clearly unfair. The bill isn't intended to help a poor author or publisher (like me), who typically can't afford to sue, even if he has a good case. The remarks about "technological challenges," "technical experts," and "electronic data" make it clear that it's the deep-pocketed entertainment industry who'll be getting their legal costs covered by tax-payers. This law is about ordinary citizens being forced to fund lawsuits that only benefit those who can easily afford to file their own civil lawsuits.
--Mike Perry, Inkling Books, Seattle
http://www.InklingBooks.com/
Letter I sent my Senators - feel free to use it (Score:4, Interesting)
Please vote "No" on S.2237.
- Having a look at who is sponsoring it (Hatch and Leahy) alone, it is obvious that this is a matter of legislation on behalf of the large media conglomerates.
- This legislation would involve the justice department in pursuing action against casual, non-criminal (civil) infringement.
- This legislation is an attempt on behalf of the large media conglomerates to place upon tax payers the legal bill for pursuing unreasonable and outrageous civil penalties against their sons and daughters in highschool and college.
If we are to be forced to assume the legal bills of the RIAA and MPAA, then it is time to have a legitimate and serious public hearing on the illegitimacy of the ever expanding "Intellectual Property" regime that is:
- Destroying our commons.
- Defying the intent and wisdom of our founders.
- Tying up and suppressing the past 70 years of our history in the pocketbooks of corporate non-entities.
- Inventing a "right to profit" from what was originally a right of the public to promote the interests of the commons.
Disney's archive vault is NOT the commons.
Thank you for your time,
xxxx
Terrorism? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is rich from a previous copyright abuser. (Score:3, Insightful)
Email your Senate critters (Score:3, Informative)
The 3 of them know that I'm a veteran and I vote!
Piracy Segwayed (Score:3, Funny)
Why dont the holier-than-thou anti-piracy types justify their position. The reason they dont, I believe, is because to them being on the side of the law is all that matters.
Either that or they believe in the "free market" and that by engaging in piracy you are somehow
'distorting' the market. As though there were such a thing as a free market in the music business.
Why you would defend the music establishment is beyond me. This is an industry whos meat & potatoes revolves entirely around leveraging as much dosh as possible out of Mom & Pops wallets by way of their children.
And they're fucking good at it too. When asked what they think they will be when they grow up, surveys show that the kids of today all basically think they're going to be fuckin famous. It's patently absurd. I really feel sorry for the little buggers actually. Not only are they constantly fed shit ideas/products but they have little to no exercise as well, and are so fat that it is believed a whole generation of kids are going to have serious heart problems by their mid-30's!
Oh Yes, I can see the future now. An entire generation of fat thirty-somethings living at home still clinging to the belief that a talent scout will 'find' them and shower them with fame, fortune and a triple by-pass operation.
Now what was I talking about, oh yeah piracy....
You are missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You are missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
At what point does it step past "freedom" and into illegal?
Do I have the right to shoot the noise dog next door to be "free" of the noise?
Why not?
When our "freedoms" and illegal cross steps have to be taken. By supporting the illegal actions regardless of the cause or ideal behind it you bolster the RIAA's arguments.
Re:You are missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
The point you're missing is that what is LEGAL is constantly shrinking. If the law was a static, absolute thing, your point would be valid. At some point one must stand up and say "the law goes too far". Are you really suggesting that all laws should be obeyed simply because they're LAWS?
Re:You are missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
You feel its wrong, Argue the legal valid points. Don't just download music because you think your punishing the RIAA for there acts. Your feeding there power not working to prevent it when you take those actions.
Re:You are missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree with the spirit of what you're saying - people ripping off music are just the other side of a double-edged problem - I disagree with the way you presented it.
That day 0 copy of the next StarWars can and should land you in jail plain and simple.
Why on earth should that land anyone in jail? Punishments should be contingent with the magnitude of the crime. Last I knew, society didn't really suffer a whole lot because some poor college kid or some cheap bastard ripped off a copy of a crappy sci fi flick. Pay a fine and that's that. I mean, explain to me, please, how wasting your time downloading a movie that costs $8 to see in the theatre and $20 to bring home on DVD is worth a couple thousand taxpayer dollars for jail time? Even if you're talking about the person that made the 0 day rip available, they didn't cause enough harm to justify jail time. Make them pay twenty eight bucks for the content and add court costs, reasonable restitution for investigating and prosecuting the case, and a fine. Make the fine bigger for the person who made the copy.
Nobody ever died because someone downloaded a movie. There's no justfication for jail time, $100k+ fines, or any of the other insanely draconian punishments that these nutters in the content industries want to try and mete out.
Punishments, yes. But reasonable ones.
All that said, I find it greatly distressing that those two whackjobs Leahy and Hatch are seriously suggesting spending more of MY tax money to help their palm-greasers stomp on people's feet. It's not MY content, so I don't think I should have to pay to enforce the copyright on it. THAT'S actually the problem in this story.
Re:You are missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
No, we don't. Living life legally costs alot. Jobs aren't exactly government apportioned to all that need them. And while most are lucky enough to struggle and afford the means to a "legal" life, what about those that can't?
If you were even slightly articulate, I think you would have said "we have the right..."
Which is slightly different. If you mean legal rights, well then this statement is completely circular and meaningless. Stupid even. And if you meant some
Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (Score:2)
If enough people made noise about white color crimes laws would change, actions would be taken.
We as a people pick and choose what we fight for and against. But unless you take into consideration your actions there are penaltys.
I think copyright is wrong, Does that make it right for me to download music I don't own.
I think abortion is wrong, Does that make it right for me to blow up hospitals that perform those abortions?
If I think copyright is wrong, Does that mak
Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (Score:2)
I agree the methods are wrong, But its our own actions that have fueled the methods.
Plenty of the actions by the "Homeland of Securitys" can be deems wrong and against our founding fathers ideals.
Why then do they get away with it. Because the "wheel" called terrorism made so much noise the goverment had to act.
so you got first astroturf post... (Score:4, Interesting)
We also know that by and large, "piracy" translates to end users redistributing reduced quality versions of the real products on their own dimes to the profit of the record and film industries. There are a long list of reasons why the Hollywood content cartel do not like letting the free market determine how they get marketed instead of giving them sole discretion as to what the public finds out about a product before release, the main one is that it can make crap movies or records DOA befcre they hit the street as well as take good ones to number 1. However, "protecing businesses from incompetence" is not a proper use of taxpayer funds.
However, the real question here is WHY should the Feds spend our money to assist copyright holders take legal action against end users. Traditionally, that is the copyright holder's problem, which the copyright owner asserts in exchange for the ability to derive income from the copyright.
If you wish to donate YOUR money to the RIAA and MPAA for attacking end users, your privilege. Don't bring the rest of us in to this.
Re:so you got first astroturf post... (Score:2)
I hate taxes, But I pay them.. Because I think our goverment spends to much money, because I think the tax laws are just not right, Do I not pay my taxes and get thrown in jail. Or do I vote for the people I feel will affect the taxes the most?
Its not about WHO is right or wrong. Its about the actions WE as the people take to try and right those wrongs.
2 wrongs do not make a right.
Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (Score:4, Insightful)
Get a sense of perspective, for God's sake!
That day 0 copy of the next StarWars film should get you a stiff fine at worst. Prison? Are you kidding? I don't think people should breach copyright (sorry, it's not the same as stealing), but your extreme view shows you're way off base. Prison is for people who are dangerous to society. I am 100% sure that you yourself have done things that are more dangerous to society than downloading a stinking movie online.
What we all really know for sure:
1) Copyright and patent law in this country are out of hand, giving people the impetus for unlawful resistence.
2) Unlawful resistence is unlawful and not particularly effective in this case.
Everything else is speculation and fiery opinion. Personally I'm for reforming the laws. In the meantime, as an artist myself I have released some of my work [crazyeddy.com] under a creative commons lisence. I encourage other artists to do the same.
Cheers.
Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (Score:2)
I think the punishment should be based on the actions..
1) Did you download it to watch yourself?
2) Did you download it with the intent to put on your ftp server for others to download.
3) Did you record it with the intent to distribute illegally.
Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (Score:3, Informative)
IT IS NOT *THEFT*!!!
It is copyright infringement. Plain and simple. I have not walked into the studio and taken the physical property of the artist. Still think its theft? Dictionary.com [reference.com]:
Copyright in
Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (Score:3, Insightful)
Ahh but that defines the taking of solid objects and was put in webster before computers even existed.
That's ridiculous. Copyright infringement predates Webster. I'd say the printing press pretty much let that cat out of the bag a few hundred years before Webster was even on this planet.
Re:Nice try, (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, moron. This potential law isn't about the criminal act of copyright infringement - the JD already handles the criminal part. This potential law is about granting the government the authority to be involved in civil cases.
The entire concept of the distinction between civil and criminal law is that the government is not supposed to have the authority to punish we the people unless they have proof beyond reasonable doubt. Civil law is for cases where there is only a preponderance of evidence. Civil law has only ever been meant to encompass civil entity versus civil entity, not government versus governed.
When the dispute is civil entity versus civil entity, who is supposed to decide which side the government should back? Criminal law already deals with copyright infringement.
Take for example the IBM versus SCO fight - that is a civil dispute, which side should the government be backing? Neither. The government should never be involved in civil disputes except as the adjudicator.
Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (Score:3, Insightful)
Um... doesn't that strike anyone else as a dangerous precedent that could conceivably be extended to ANY area of civil law, such that the gov't could "take sides" in ANY civil suit??!
Someone above mentioned how this law could become a spearhead for censorship. I'm thinking if it isn't found unconstitutional, it could also be a toehold for just about any field that thinks the gov't should be on their side, and
Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (Score:5, Insightful)
They do NOT own that music or movie or concept. The minute they place that info in the public view, WE own it. However in order to incourage them to create such things we (via our proxy, the government) grant them a limited monopoly on the profitable distribution/use of that material for a limited time.
At least that is how it is supposed to be in the United States. But corporate $$ has been spent to buy poloticians and propaganda untill a suprisingly large number of people actually believe they have some sort of natural right or ownership over ideas just because they were first to come up with it, or at least file paperwork claiming so.
Mycroft
Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Song of the piracy apologist (Score:4, Funny)
I've tried fast track, Gnuttela2 and Edonkey, all of them have found nothing!!
Re:Song of the piracy apologist -- Locked & Lo (Score:4, Insightful)
Boy, you seem to have had this one Locked & Loaded and ready to fire on a moment's notice.
Re:Song of the piracy apologist (Score:5, Insightful)
Song of the piracy apologist:
Or, in other words, if you agree with this screed, please use it to spam any future discussion of intellectual property law with pre-canned arguments rather than engaging in a rational debate framed in your own words.
(p.s. post it anonymously so people don't know who you are and mentally label you a mindless parrot)
good summary of RIAA propaganda (Score:2)
Re:Song of the piracy apologist (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright was created, at least in this country, for the extrinsic purpose of promoting "the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Note that the exclusive rights granted are only done so for a specific end. I am not one to say that just because it is in the Constitution, that makes it right. Rather, it is just a tidy summary of my views on intellectual property. If the consequent is no longer contingent on the antecedent, we can remove the antecedent as extraneous. That is, if the "progress of sciences and useful arts" no longer depends on intellectual "property", then there is no need for this legal entity.
Many believe, and I'm sure you're one of them, that copyright and other intellectual "properties" are intrinsic rights of the author. I just disagree. There is no Archimedian point from which such disparate views can be arbitrated, so I don't see this debate being resolved anytime soon. However, I am quite certain that my position is coherence and cogent. You can only contradict it by assuming intellectual rights are intrinsic. Which is fine, but I can simply assume the opposite. And there's no way you can say that my view is wrong because of X, because whatever X you choose, I choose my view to trump it. So please, go ahead and try.
Oh, and you're a lying sack of shit as well. (Score:3, Insightful)
The argument has been completely substantiated in repeated studies, the ones the RIAA didn't pay for. The only studies that contradict this are the ones the content cartel bought, the same way MS buys FUD studies.
P2P promotes sales. It does NOT displace them unless the prod
Re:Song of the piracy apologist (Score:4, Interesting)
Eh. I download music. I will offer no defense or moral or legal justification for it however.
I download a lot of music in fact. But, let's consider the last week:
Friend sent me a link to this album by the Stars. Very good. Like, I was amazed how good. It was so good in fact that I went over to Amazon and ordered it. I also noticed on Amazon that they had another album, so I ordered it too, without having heard it before. Purchase was justified as the music was really top notch.
This actually repeated itself twice in a week. Friend sent me really crappy rips of Pinback's new album Offcell... burnt them to CD, played them over and over and over again. Ended up buying that CD, as well as their two previous CDs. While I was at the store buying those, I noticed another CD from another artist I had downloaded (VAST) and grabbed that as well.
I have a lot of music however that I never did pay for. There are a few albums in there, that if I could find, I would definatly buy in a heartbeat. There are also a lot that I really would never buy in a second.
Now, im a reclusive computer geek type. I do not as a matter of habit go out to shows, or assoicate with people. If I hadn't gotten those albums from that friend, I wouldn't have bought them. Ever. And I also wouldn't have been buying random albums from bands that get absolutly zero air time on any radio station... in fact, this brings up a curious question. These artists I like are indie. where did people hear about them pre-internet? I don't know.
So, anyways, that's just one persons experience. I won't attempt to say I'm right or justified in downloading music. However, in my specific 1% case, it has made a big difference in the music I listen to. If it goes away, *I* will be out of a great source... and I'm not positive what it would be replaced by.