Slashdot Log In
Justice Department Promises Stronger Copyright Punishments
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon May 14, 2007 04:27 PM
from the dancing-the-big-business-polka dept.
from the dancing-the-big-business-polka dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has stated that the Justice department will be getting even harder on copyright infringement, targeting repeat offenders. The new 'Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007' is headed for Congress promising to 'hit criminals in their wallets' hoping to ensure that any 'ill-gotten gains' are forfeited.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Nobody panic (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nobody panic (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There were really only two big mistakes: 1) He waited until there was something the Republicans didn't like to fire them, and 2) He wasn't straight with them about why they were being fired. As mentioned elsewhere, it's perfectly normal for an incoming president to completely repopulate these positions with folks that are friendly to their administration, particularly in the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously, it would be naive to believe that politics weren't a factor, but I think there are larger issues at stake: you'll notice that some Republicans have been grilling the hell out of Gonzalez and asking him to resign.
One issue is reining in Bush's "Imperial Presidency", which acts like it can do whatever it wants
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The latter (although it's attorneys; presidents cannot fire judges). Firing all the attorneys at the start of a new president's term, to replace them with people the new president wants, is normal and reasonable. Firing some of them later, for what appear to
Re:He may not get to resign (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush, however, got everyone to fill out their resignations, and just kept them.
The ones fired, were prosecuting Republican election fraud, or failing to persue Democratic voter fraud -- of which I think there is perhaps one legitimate case in the entire country. They've been trying to make a case like someone is able to rig an election by busing voters here and there, to commit a felony, only to change the vote by a bus load of people. Ain't going to work. The vast majority (OK -- ALL) legendary voter fraud comes down to people registering in one place, and failing to un-register when they move elsewhere. Innocent, and normal stuff. While disenfranchising voters, and throwing out legitimate votes, is somehow not a federal crime and happens all the time.
>> But the Prosecutor firings are even a bigger deal than this.
From the Daily Kos;
McClatchy:
In an e-mail dated May 11, 2006, Sampson urged the White House counsel's office to call him regarding "the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam," who then the U.S. attorney for southern California. Earlier that morning, the Los Angeles Times reported that Lam's corruption investigation of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., had expanded to include another California Republican, Rep Jerry Lewis.
Perhaps what is lost in all this confusion over who said what when and which prosecutors were bushies and which were not is just how significant Lam's investigation was. This paragraph from an August 2006 article in Vanity Fair will instruct:
Tens of thousands of pages of congressional documents going as far back as 1997 have been demanded by the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Diego. The C.I.A., Pentagon, I.R.S., and F.B.I. are conducting investigations, and at least three congressional committees are cooperating in hopelessly tardy fashion. "We are scrubbing" is how a staffer on the intelligence committee puts it. Washington is unraveling.
>> So it was all about stopping the Carol Lam investigation. It leads back to Abramoff, arms contractors, and two murdered prosecutors.
Parent
Re:He may not get to resign (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it is. But how could this possibly be a bad thing? Between his disastrous mismanagement of the war, massive deficit spending, domestic spying, and the way his administration has polarized this country, they're doing him a favor. It's like taking away the keys from the drunk at your party, or a loaded gun away from a three-year old.
Parent
Look over there! Pirates! and Ninjas! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Look over there! Pirates! and Ninjas! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
It's come to this? (Score:3, Interesting)
it's a good thing ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Or even on voter fraud. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Or even on voter fraud. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you hate Freedom so much?
Parent
Re:it's a good thing ... (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
'He also said he would "hit criminals in their wallets" by boosting restitution and ensuring all ill-gotten gains are forfeited, as well as any property used to commit the crimes.'
Now... where have we heard that before? Oh yes, that sounds just like the drug laws that let police seize your house if they find you had marijuana inside it.
Does this mean your computer (and possibly your home) can be taken by government officials when you've pirated a few too many MP3s? Or written DVD-playback software for Linux?
In any case, this will give law enforcers another tool, like the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror," to make their jobs as all-encompassingly powerful and unaccountable as possible.
Parent
Re:it's a good thing ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, now
Parent
Re:it's a good thing ... (Score:5, Informative)
Probably -- in my opinion, current asset forfiture laws amount to little more than state-sanctioned theft. Expanding asset forfiture to include intellectual property law just sweatens the pot for government abuse.
With asset forfiture laws, simply having a large amount of cash in your possession is sufficent evidence for law enforcement to seize property, as demonstrated in this [wikipedia.org] recent case. Neither the police nor the government even needs to prove you are guilty of a crime for the cops to take your stuff; mere suspicion is grounds to grab your house, your car or anything else of value. In 80% of asset forfiture cases, no one is ever even charged with a crime [1] [wikipedia.org]. Better yet -- at least from the government's point of view -- it's up to you to prove that seized assets were not actually obtained through illegal activity. And, as if this weren't enough, if you can't prove in court that your assets weren't used in connection with a crime, guess who gets to pay the bill for the government's attorney costs? Yeap, that's right chief -- that'd be you.
If I were in law enforcement, I suppose expanding the current asset forfiture plan to include intellectual property infractions would give me a warm, fuzzy feeling inside. Hell -- considering how many people likely have a least a mix-tape or two, or simply can't provide a receipt for every piece of IP in their possession, law enforcement might as well have a license to print money if this becomes law.
Parent
What about when there are NO monetary gains? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What about when there are NO monetary gains? (Score:4, Funny)
Significant percentages of their paychecks signed over to the *IAA every month, of course, via garnishments. Likely collected by the government on behalf of the plaintiffs to avoid it getting cancelled out by bankruptcy. A Chapter 7 will wipe out a lotta stuff, but not things like child support, student loans turned over for government collection, and Infernal Revenue garnishments for repayment of taxes. And no, IANAL, but I've had personal experience in this area.
Is it too late for me to start my own record/movie company and get in on this payday????
Parent
Re:What about when there are NO monetary gains? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Hmm... No. (Score:3, Interesting)
Of the three things listed - only one has ever been considered (under the law) to be fair use. To wit: making backup copies. (C'mon, handing out mix tapes? That's distribution - that's dis
Great thinking, guys (Score:5, Interesting)
In other news, the State of Texas will now kill you *twice* if the crime is *really* serious.
ill-gotten gains??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps I am mistaken, but aren't most copyright infringers/violaters people doing it for their own personal gains. While there are some people who sell copyrighted stuff they don't own, I suspect 99% of the violations are from kids who share/download music that they weren't authorized by the copyright holder to do so.
Re:ill-gotten gains??? (Score:4, Funny)
I don't watch many movies, and the ones I do watch, I already own, or I happen to catch them on TV. I'm sure the MPAA will blame it on piracy, but I simply don't buy movies anymore because they're not worth it. Someone starts talking about $CelebrityOfTheWeek I'd have to go google them to figure out who the hell it is, but I don't care enough to.
Oh, and get off my lawn.
Young whippersnappers, always causing problems.
Uphill, snow, both ways...
Parent
Murders and rapists (Score:5, Insightful)
Corruption at the Justice Department. The laws are to protect the citizens. The citizens do not want strong copyright punishments. That is what the big media corporations want.
Re:Wrong again. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the deal has become lop-sided. There's no way that an author's great grandchildren holding the rights to his writings up to 70 years after he died promotes the progress of science or the useful arts. That's just called greed. The author doesn't create more if he knows his distant descendants will still be extorting money for almost a century after he kicks off.
Arguably, the public domain is also vitally important to progress. Think about all the inventions that would have been lost or the massive inflation of prices (due to royalties) if patents were essentially perpetual as well. Think about historians in 100 years, trying to figure out if they can reprint a photo out of fear that someone, somewhere will show up and demand royalties because the photo was taken by their great-great-grandfather. It's already a nightmare figuring out reproduction rights.
The system is broken, and stronger penalties won't fix it. Existing punishments are adequate if enforced against the real problem - large scale commercial piracy. Sane copyright terms, in conjunction with media companies not treating customers like felons, would be a good start.
Parent
What is an IP law? (Score:5, Insightful)
Be careful, whenever some politician blabbers on about "Intellectual Property", it really means they are in bed with the Megacorps and want to muddy the issue in order to set some bastardized legal precedent on the sheep-like public who won't notice a thing until the water boils.
Re:What is an IP law? (Score:5, Insightful)
And they are doing a fine job of it, with the uncritical repetition in this article of curious notion of "intellectual property thieves".
Intellectual "property" is a terrible metaphor. "Property" is a legal machine that is designed to enforce capture of negative externalities. That is, when you own property, you are responsible for its upkeep. Without property rights you could dump your wastes or graze your sheep on the commons, and not ever pay any costs for that. The notion of property, first and foremost, forces you to pay your own way on your own property.
Intellectual "property" on the other hand is a legal machine that is intended to enforce capture of positive externalities: good things that happen to other people because of your work. [ssrn.com]
Patents, trademarks and copyright are sufficiently unlike property that any attempt to reason about them using property metaphors is doomed to failure from the outset. It is a tad disturbing that this failed metaphor has become so much a part of the popular legal consciousness that even the Attorney General is able to remember it.
This is not to say that individuals cannot have rights in patents, trademarks and copyrights. But those rights are not ownership rights to property, and violating those rights is not theft.
Parent
Penalties? (Score:5, Insightful)
"said he would "hit criminals in their wallets" by boosting restitution and ensuring all ill-gotten gains are forfeited, as well as any property used to commit the crimes."
So, what if no one's profiting off of the infringement?
Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that copyright infringement is criminal, politicians, attorneys and law enforcement can all cry for even more money, to be "tough on crime". Plus, since I'd guess most everyone over age ten in the US has infringed someone's copyright (downloaded something, photocopied without permission, duped a video tape, etc), it becomes yet another crime you can be charged with if someone in power decides you need to be arrested.
What we really need is copyright reform.
"Ill Gotten Gains" (Score:5, Insightful)
Cool. That is the way it should be.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now on the other hand, if I got to fine the MPAA after I watched Catwoman, then I might be in favor of it.
There is a reason the Founding Fathers hated IP (Score:5, Interesting)
I for one miss the days of a single 17 year patent life, and a copyright that ended after 21 years.
And I say that as a published (paid) writer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what? A goodly chunk of America's economy was once based on slavery - including both chattel bondage and debt bondage. Even beyond that, when the country was founded the franchise was limited to a minority of citizens.
Since they are thing we had when the country was founded, shall we roll back the laws that have corrected those abuses as well?
Re:There is a reason the Founding Fathers hated IP (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea was that the creator would have a monopoly on the creation long enough that they would be motivated to do the work.
After that the creation was turned over to society so anyone could build on it.
The original meaning changed somehow so now instead of being a temporary, governmanet-granted monopoly even the general populace thinks that it is possible to OWN an idea.
This is a recent historical event but has somehow become so pervasive that most people I talk to actually believe that the creator of a work has a moral right to control that work for the rest of time. That has never been the case and shouldn't be now.
We should fix the laws so that they enforce the original intent. Copyright and Patents should be enough motivate creators to create- not to hold society for ransom.
Parent
Re:There is a reason the Founding Fathers hated IP (Score:5, Insightful)
Because patents often are about physical phenomena which can't be duplicated, and because "Inventing" is in a sense not creating something which did not exist, but rather being really smart and be the first one to figure something out.
Take fire, for example. Imagine someone having a patent on using fire for cooking. That would be a rich family by now, huh? Or what if my ancestors had filed a patent on using a round device called a wheel to reduce friction.
Todays patents on compressed sound and video (aka mp3 or dvd) are more advanced, but they still deal with something which is essentially a naturally occuring phenomenon just waiting to be discovered and used.
The purpose of patents should be to reward the inventor/discovery so society can benefit from more inventions, but the reward should not be so large the inventor benefits more than society does.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also, any creative work which is worthwhile will become known to a large portion of the population. In some sense, it becomes part of our culture. There is an i
The headline should have been (Score:5, Informative)
There are already ample penalties for copyright infringement and ways to shut them down. In fact, it makes no different for the guilty party if he is fined for $100M or $1B, since he will not be able to pay it off anyway. In the meantime, United States has a ridiculously high murder rate compared to other developed countries. Do any politicians up for election in 2008 care to address that? Like you know, stop sales of guns to mentally ill?
Just goes to show the direction of our country (Score:3, Informative)
What a schmoe! (Score:5, Funny)
bring it on, morons (Score:5, Insightful)
in the other corner, legions of poor, borderless, highly motivated, technically astute, and media loving teenagers who couldn't give one rats ass about the bloated overreaching joke that copyright law in this country has become, because it is way beyond speaking to them in the language of right and wrong
copyright law is WAY beyond protecting the artist's rights when you can't play "happy birthday" on a piano without the need to pay someone/ get permission, and mickey mouse will NEVER be in the public domain. the idea is to strike a balance between the common good and the rights of the artist. but moneyed middle men have stuck a big fat finger on that scale, and it's permanently imbalanced. in other words, copyright law is broken, corrupt, insoluble, dead
poor teenagers versus corporate interests. it's not even a blink of an eye who will obviously win: the teenagers
the future of ip law in the usa is china: lip service played to the idea at official levels, some high profile demonstration busts that don't change a thing, and rampant complete ignorance of and ignoring of ip law on the street
copyright is dead. corporations killed it by not playing fair and only looking for some more $ at the expense of our common cultural riches. you can't measure common cultural riches on the corporate ledger, so it never got a fair reckoning in the boardroom. the result: complete disconnect between law and reality
Fair is fair (Score:3, Interesting)
Consequences of an Ownership Society (Score:3, Insightful)
This kind of posturing and eventual law enforcement activity where they'll perp-walk someone for some kind of copyright violation will get votes and most importantly raise campaign contributions.
I suspect more than a few slashdotters think that "the private sector does a better job at most things than the government.." The private sector is maximizing their revenues by enforcing its ownership rights and NOW it's a problem?
If you can't get by without infringing copyright.. (Score:4, Informative)
This isn't popular to say on Slashdot now that the abolish-copyright stance has become part of the "groupthink gospel", but I am fed up with largely a particular demographic whining about copyright law and its enforcement. Sure, complain about its excesses, but when in practice it most of the time amounts to complaining about being caught downloading the latest Spiderman movie from your dorm room, all I have to say is: grow up, put up, or shut up.
While copyright infringement is not theft, your average media consumer has as much excuse for knowingly downloading a song or movie in violation of copyright law as he or she does for taking a candybar from the supermarket without paying for it: none at all.
And there is similarly no excuse for not being willing to accept the consequences of those actions, They know it is illegal, yet still do it. Maybe they style themselves as practicing civil disobedience? Then deal with the consequences of those actions. The more out of line the punishment, the more they should relish it, because that is how civil disobedience makes its case. But they don't, because they aren't. It's completely transparent.
Everything from the demographic, to the logic, to the motives, to the actions of these people screams one thing, and it is blatantly obvious to the rest of society: casual copyright infringing consumers want content but are not willing to pay for it. Take just for example that there are now many (perhaps too many) services out there offering legally downloadable music, DRM-FREE, for reasonable prices (reasonable to anyone working hard to earn a living).
Not to mention, abolishing copyright would practically impose significantly upon the rest of society. Prices of movies in theatres would be several times what they are now. Consumers wouldn't be able to buy their favorite movies on DVD. Studios would need to keep them running in theatres as long as possible. Entering a theatre would be more security intensive than boarding an airplane. You would probably have to sign a contract when entering. And yes, mainstream content is mainstream in large part because a great many people like it. These same people think that your svelt black metal and electronica-subgenre is crap. It isn't a conspiracy and no one is a "sheep" for listening to music that makes them happy. Grow up.
You and the artists you like are free to produce as much public domain or copyleft content as you wish. No one is stopping you. No. No, they are not.
Thank you.
Deja Vu all over again (Score:5, Insightful)
Then the Feds asked for more power, because they needed to get the supply chain, and grabbing a few Ferraris and yachts of really rich cocaine suppliers would help. The American people went along with this, too.
Then the Feds just assumed they had the power to grab the assets of the dealers. The American people didn't really think anything of this. After all, these drug dealers were bad people and besides, they were shooting up parts of the city in turf wars, so let the Feds grab the drug dealer BMWs with the really ugly custom wheels.
Then the Feds began seizing the assets of the drug users. Most Americans were under the impression the drug users were strung out heroine and crack junkies, so didn't give a shit. Only now Mr and Mrs Average American are learning otherwise, because their teenage son got pulled over in mom's car, and he had a joint on him, and the police are keeping the car.
I predicted this would happen at the very first stage. I was right. Even if the Feds swear up and down on a stack of bibles that they're only going to use this power on the big time commercial piracy operations, I won't believe them. Maybe today they mean it, but what about next tomorrow?
Fuck the government. They will ALWAYS abuse even the smallest amount of power. That's why we have to have the tightest possible controls on them as possible. If making it hard for them to abuse their job has the side affect of making it hard for them to do their job, so what. My rights and freedom are THAT FUCKING IMPORTANT.
Good Point ... pitiful gang of politicians (Score:4, Insightful)
corporatist government strangle hold on IPR, patents
China, Russia, India
and the International Court to go fuck themselves with their dead-battery dildo.
But,it ain't like the USA has been able to figure anything out 12 months or 12
years out. Clueless courts, diplomacy, domestic policy, government
incompetent slime-ball pitiful gang of politicians have not been collected together
in one government since the Mao-China's "Cultural Revolution", Stalin's Purges,
Hitler's Perfect Aryan Religion
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Drop the hammer on them (Score:4, Insightful)
I've always been a supporter of two-term presidents (and their staffs):
One term in office.
One term in jail.
Parent
Re:Drop the hammer on them (Score:5, Funny)
Absolutely!
If you get caught smoking pot or drinking under age.
Then sex with a minor (even if you're one too): 17 yr old sex with 15 yr old - 10 years [go.com]
And downloading a song. Why you should die! Put to death! Because the law is the law and laws are just and true! Why, all of the lobbyists in Washington just want what's best for us and so do our legislators.
And if it's illegal then that means it's EVIL and must be banned because our politicians are infallible! It's inconceivable that they would even make a mistake and violate our liberties. Why, if you disagree with the law, you're unAmerican and HATE freedom!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)