Justice Department Promises Stronger Copyright Punishments 322
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.
Re:Nobody panic (Score:4, Interesting)
It's come to this? (Score:3, Interesting)
it's a good thing ... (Score:5, Interesting)
What about when there are NO monetary gains? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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:Penalties? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:There is a reason the Founding Fathers hated IP (Score:2, Interesting)
You think infringement is trivial? (Score:2, Interesting)
Imagine, if you will, that you are leading America in an age where manufacturing has become either trivial and moved offshore, or incredibly complex with the use of robotics and other such things developing nations are not yet good at. What would you do? Intellectual property, even if you don't agree with the term, is important; and although we primarily see lawmakers' views on the issue extending to DRM, audio, and video piracy, I don't think that's their only consideration.
America's cultural exports are powerful and at least worth protecting in some way. But it's more than that. It's about maintaining a leading role in research, development, technology, infrastructure, information technology, and a host of other things. And even though I think the US could use a hell of a lot better implementation to achieve these ideals (especially in regards to the next generation and their schooling), I have to agree that IP infringement is an important issue, and a complex issue.
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 distribution, which is about as blatant as copyright infringement comes.)
Fair is fair (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:it's a good thing ... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:"Ill Gotten Gains" (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.
Re:Drop the hammer on them (Score:3, Interesting)
The Athenian democrats had the idea of voting on this while people were still alive -- "ostracism", that is. Only it wasn't so much about deciding who was and was not a criminal, but rather about deciding who was too dangerous to have around, whether because they were too influential, too wealthy, or whatever.
However, they did also have mandatory examinations of public officials upon leaving office, a process called euthynia. Accounts were inspected by randomly selected committees; any citizen could bring an accusation against the official in a public court; embezzlement or corruption would lead to a fine ten times the amount received; incompetence was let off with a fine merely equal to the amount involved.
I rather like the idea.