DMCA Safe Harbor May Not Apply To Old Copyrighted Works 139
tlhIngan writes "On Tuesday, the New York appellate court denied Grooveshark the DMCA safe harbor protection on songs like Johnny B. Goode. What happened was due to an oddity in the law, the DMCA does not apply to state-licensed copyrighted works (those copyrighted before February 15, 1972). What happened was Congress overhauled copyright law to make it a Federal matter, but all works prior to that date still come under common-law and state statutes. The end result is that Grooveshark does not have DMCA safe harbor protection for older works and may be sued for copyright infringement (barring other agreements, e.g., UMG and YouTube), even though they fully comply with the DMCA otherwise, taking down copyrighted materials. Grooveshark is a "music locker" service allowing users to upload music for others to listen to."
And it was through this (Score:5, Insightful)
that corporations denied us access to our culture.
You might see music as a "product", but it's been a cultural output since the beginning of time.
Re:And it was through this (Score:5, Interesting)
that corporations denied us access to our culture.
You might see music as a "product", but it's been a cultural output since the beginning of time.
When I ran the anti-corrupt CD campaign for the UK Campaign for Digital Right (now defunct), the group with the most interesting complaint were the archivists. They have the responsibility to archive our culture for future generations. All the DRM and physical protections and ill-conceived laws make their job increasingly difficult. If corporations have their way, maybe in 1000 years this will indeed be seen as a Dark Age because nothing readable/accessible of our corporate-sponsored culture survived. Just cat videos.
Re:And it was through this (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, welcome our new vengeful feline overlords.
Re:And it was through this (Score:4, Funny)
At least they'll be well-dressed [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Feline overlords (Score:2)
Seen on a poster somewhere recently:
Seems about right for what I see at our house. :)
Cheers,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"In ancient times cats were worshiped as gods; they have not forgotten this."
Terry Pratchett I believe.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They will be most thankful that humans have kept their historical "culture" properly archived
And they'll think we taste like chicken.
Re: (Score:2)
"When I ran the anti-corrupt CD campaign for the UK Campaign for Digital Right (now defunct), the group with the most interesting complaint were the archivists. They have the responsibility to archive our culture for future generations. All the DRM and physical protections and ill-conceived laws make their job increasingly difficult."
And in the U.S., DMCA is one of the most egregious laws. We keep hearing about the "safe harbor" provisions, but those provisions would hardly be necessary if it weren't for the other, very negative parts of this disastrous law.
Having said that, I really wonder about TFA, and whether it gets things quite right. Copyright has always been a Federal matter in the U.S... it says so right there in our Constitution.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
States used to have their own copyright laws. The 1976 copyright act nullified them going forward but they may still apply for older works.
Congress (and big media) assert that it has the power to extend the duration of these state issued copyrights. Is the scope of preemption by the federal copyright law really so limited that the DMCA would not apply to those works?
Worse, selective application of the DMCA to those early works would create an even more difficult situation not only for customers, but also for independent artists. The way things have been going for the last few decades, it will soon be impossible for artists to legally distribut
Re: (Score:2)
"States used to have their own copyright laws. The 1976 copyright act nullified them going forward but they may still apply for older works."
I'm not about to claim that's wrong, because I don't recall ever hearing about it before. But the Federal government has always had the power to issue copyrights, so having separate State copyrights seems pretty strange and redundant.
U.S. Constitution, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have power...
8.8 To promote 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;"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Worse. They own the kitchen. They own the house. They own the land on which it stands. They even own you. (Well, not entirely, yet, that last one, but they're working on it.)
Re: (Score:2)
forgot to quote you
"So it looks like they are having their cake and eating it too"
as intro to my post.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, the article was right.
And this ruling basically makes the DMCA invalid, because a web site operator would need to implement a filter to determine if uploaded files were covered by this older copyright law [or be sued and lose, as per this case], but doing this filtering means you know [or can know] that the file is covered by someones copyright in general, therefore you can't be protected by the DMCA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
problem is this won't cause the DMCA to get dropped, it'll just make the one decent part (safe harbor) useless. Sort of like how fair-use is legal*, but useless because you can't actually do any of the stuff without breaking the DMCA.
* 'Legal' here in the sense of 'not forbidden'. Fair use (currently) isn't a right, it's a restriction on lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2)
'Legal' here in the sense of 'not forbidden'. Fair use (currently) isn't a right, it's a restriction on lawsuits.
On the contrary. Fair use is both a restriction on lawsuits, and a right.
Article 1, Section 8.8
To promote 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;
... is the only place in the Constitution that refers to any "right" being Government-granted. But it does at least mention that they are limited. This is in contrast to other rights in the Constitution. Scholars are pretty much in agreement that (except for 8.8) the "rights" mentioned in the Constitution were not considered to be Government-granted at all. They were considered to already exist; the Constitutio
Re: (Score:2)
The existence of fair use may be based on the right of free speech (though the description in law does not seem to me to indicate this), but in practice it is defined as a restriction and exception to the rights of copyright holders:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. 106 and 17 U.S.C. 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
I wish it were a right. I could sue for being prevented from making copies for legitimate purposes. But as is, it's an "if you manage to do this it's not an infraction".
Re: (Score:2)
that corporations denied us access to our culture.
You might see music as a "product", but it's been a cultural output since the beginning of time.
When I ran the anti-corrupt CD campaign for the UK Campaign for Digital Right (now defunct), the group with the most interesting complaint were the archivists. They have the responsibility to archive our culture for future generations. All the DRM and physical protections and ill-conceived laws make their job increasingly difficult. If corporations have their way, maybe in 1000 years this will indeed be seen as a Dark Age because nothing readable/accessible of our corporate-sponsored culture survived. Just cat videos.
No in a thousand years our descendants will be thanking the pirates that broke the drm and shared content with the world in easily format shift-able way. todays pirates and drm hackers will be looked at the same way we look at the monks that devoted their lives to copying the greek manuscripts, or as Gutenberg for making that information accessible to the public.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about that. How much of today's culture is really worth preserving anyway? Perhaps people of the future will hate today's pirates for cursing them with a library of reality television, lady gaga, etc...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about that. How much of today's culture is really worth preserving anyway? Perhaps people of the future will hate today's pirates for cursing them with a library of reality television, lady gaga, etc...
Nah. When I look at list of most torrented shows its stuff like game of thrones , big bang theory, fringe, how i met your mother, walking dead, shows that express our culture not necessarily what the networks push. The reason there are so many "reality" tv shows is they are cheap to produce so the networks make tons realizing that while they wont get as may people watching it does not matter because they don't have to make as much money to pay for more. But when it comes to pirated television the wheat is s
Re: (Score:2)
That's what you got from Shakespeare? Oy.
Re: (Score:2)
At least patents only last about 20 years, which while an annoyingly long time that is short enough that the original physical media on which content is sold and the devices to read it will likely last that long.
Copyrights OTOH seem to keep receiving retroactive extensions and afaict the anti-cirumvention stuff has no expiry at all so they are much bigger threats to preservation of our cultural history.
Re: (Score:2)
At least patents only last about 20 years, which while an annoyingly long time that is short enough that the original physical media on which content is sold and the devices to read it will likely last that long.
Copyrights OTOH seem to keep receiving retroactive extensions and afaict the anti-cirumvention stuff has no expiry at all so they are much bigger threats to preservation of our cultural history.
With no common cultural history references, "culture" can be more easily manipulated by those in power to best suit their needs and ideology.
It's Big Brother making Winston's day-job for the regime rewriting history obsolete before he's born. Nothing to re -write. No history but their version. Unlock old information/data/cultural works and go to prison.
It doesn't get much more Orwellian/authoritarian than that, folks. Hell, it's even worse than Orwell imagined!
And, it has absolutely nothing to do with poli
Re: (Score:2)
Jeez, hey, just when I thought it was only bad and getting worse with each new piece of horse puckey from Congress, you had to lay that wonderful analysis out there. Thanks heaps, Strat.
What's the color for "not dead yet, but it's looking like a better idea every day that I read more about how much worse it's getting"?
Re: (Score:2)
Jeez, hey, just when I thought it was only bad and getting worse with each new piece of horse puckey from Congress, you had to lay that wonderful analysis out there. Thanks heaps, Strat.
What's the color for "not dead yet, but it's looking like a better idea every day that I read more about how much worse it's getting"?
Sorry Kermidge.
But, that's what happens when people wear those rose-colored glasses too long, speaking of colors. US citizens have had their rose-colored glasses on for a century.
It's like that quote from "Morpheus" in the movie "The Matrix": "You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it."
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. Great quote. Explains people voting unsupportable ideology over rational self-interest.
Worse, rose-colored glasses plus self-designed and -welcomed blinders.
Ah, crap. Better to know, I have to suppose. Yet....
Doctor: "You have a terminal condition."
Patient: "How long have I got?"
Doctor: "Do you really want to know?"
Uf da.
( http://pillarenvironmental.blogspot.com/2008/12/how-to-speak-scansin.html [blogspot.com] )
There's a few missing, up by Sheboygan, hey.
If curious, lynchspammers over der by gmail once.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah...is that the new rationalization for not paying for music?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In my reading, the DMCA cannot apply to any recording done before 2/15/1972. This includes both new rights, as well as safe harbor provisions. So anyone holding copyright on recordings older than that still has standing to sue lockers out of existence - they just have to do so in state court, not federal. Sounds like the RIAA found its workaround to the safe harbor provisions.
I note that this applies to recordings. This probably means that it's only usable by the record companies that own the masters, n
Re: (Score:2)
That good. Because the record companies aren't the problem the songwriters are. Oh, wait....
Insanity! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing that old should be covered by copyright, anyway. To give safe-harbor to those hosting new works but not those works that should be in the public domain shows that out "legislators" are batshit crazy. Only a certifiable lunatic would pass laws like the ones we have on the books.
Re:Insanity! (Score:4, Insightful)
Only a certifiable lunatic
The sociopaths are giving the lunatics a bad name!
Re: (Score:1)
Try to remember, our public servants have been given an offer they can't refuse. Either their brains or their signatures will be on whatever bill the industry proposes.
Re: (Score:3)
That is hardly a fair choice you know.... it forces them to choose signatures since they haven't got brains.
Re: (Score:2)
Only a certifiable lunatic would pass laws like the ones we have on the books.
Well, they're essentially written by an entity with multiple personality disorder who is taking advice from robber barons. Is it really surprising that they often don't make sense?
LOL "music locker" (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, we all know how well "music locker" concept is. Kinda reminds me of a store called Woolworth's. You know what's remaining of that once GIANT business? Foot Locker. Oh wait, isn't THAT dead, too? No joke, Woolworth's dissolved into Foot Locker, and Foot Locker dissolved into nothing. So will be the way of ALL P2P music sharing services, like Napster, Kazaa, Kazaa Lite, Kazaa Codec Pack, Napster, and Torrent services like The Pirate Bay and Enpornium. I suggest that you move back to CDs and use your cam
Re:LOL "music locker" (Score:5, Interesting)
So your argument is that businesses, no matter how great an empire they happen to be, that cannot adapt to the changing of the times will crumble under a superior model employed by lighter and faster moving competitors?
I can follow that argument. The source of my confusion is that you are applying it to the wrong side of the fence.
Re: (Score:2)
They did have DRM back in the 80's. It wasn't called DRM back then, but there were all kinds of schemes, all of them as half-baked and consumer-unfriendly as modern DRM. There were analog protection schemes too. Macrovision had this wonderful anti-copying technique that made the brightness and contrast go in and out, in and out. It was great. Most of the people who got to experience it were watching perfectly legal copies, of course. Not to mention that the overvoltages it applied would actually destroy som
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Who the fuck even owns a camcorder or CD player boombox anymore?
I own and still use a 5 disk CD boombox. I even still have a CD collection. I also use the box's aux input with a cheap MP3 player (or sometimes with my Android tablet)
And a friend of mine owns and uses 2 different camcorders. The older one (with a large, high quality lens) records to digital tape. The newer one records to SD card.
Slashdot Copyright Overload (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
We are creating a set of rules and laws that serve no real usefulness for the advance of real progress.
Duh. Why do you think the copyright laws were made federal in 1972? Because by then the music business had enough money to spend on congress critters, who then created laws to keep the music business profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
Duh. Why do you think the copyright laws were made federal in 1972?
It seems to me that it never made sense that it wasn't federal before. Copyright is listed in the US Constitution as being in the federal domain, so it's one of the few areas that Congress is supposed to make laws for.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but in Newspeak, 'advance of real progress' means 'securing corporate profits'.
Copyright law is now about maximizing how much companies can make.
We've always been at war with Eastasia.
Re: (Score:2)
Human progress was very slow indeed for all the centuries before "corporate profits" existed - it's not a coincidence that publically funded corporations were created during the Enlightenment. You can go too far in either direction here.
The problem we face has nothing to do with "securing corporate profits," and everything to do with the wrong people making the profits. As the need for traditional distribution vanishes, so should the traditional distributors. That's not any condemnation of the people us
Re: (Score:2)
And the enlightenment is known for far far FAR more than "creating corporations".
There were brilliant philosophers throughout history, but the Enlightenment led to the industrial revolution because, perhaps for the first time in history, there was great reward to be had for turning new ideas into products (arguably, the same thing was true during the height of the Roman Empire).
While there are certainly downsides to a system where the principal means to wealth is making a profit in the market, it's vastly better than a system where principal means to wealth is assisting the ruler in fig
Re: (Score:2)
So long as it's recognized that among the historically strong profit makers and takers are those who make armaments, chemicals, drugs, along with booze and cosmetics.
Ya gots to look good and feel good while dosing against the wounds, pain, stress involved in selling explosives and guns to people who want to kill other people for power and thus wealth. Yes indeed, vastly better. And so it goes.
Re: (Score:2)
So long as it's recognized that among the historically strong profit makers and takers are those who make armaments, chemicals, drugs, along with booze and cosmetics
You forgot slaves. Slaves were a huge source of profits throughout the Enlightenment. Spices have always been a big deal as well. But it was the solid profits to be made by pumping water out of mines, and making more efficient looms, that changed the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Good catch. Slaves, peons, serfs, all the same. Today we call them citizens.
Yup, and the slaves be we. Consumers all, thinkers [Quiet, citizen. Thinking is oldspeak.]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Does that also mean (to be consistent) that earlier works don't get the federal copyright term extensions, so anyone can use (say) Mickey Mouse?
A court can easily decide these cases through careful construction of a three part test:
1) Does the interpretation give benefits to a corporation that is a large campaign contributor?
2) Does the interpretation give benefits to a corporation that is a large campaign contributor?
3) Does the interpretation give benefits to a corporation that is a large campaign contrib
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The other question is do these works qualify for DMCA protection if they are distributed in an encrypted format?
Re: (Score:2)
Since this only applies to "sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972", unless that same recording (the one made before 15FEB1972) was encrypted, it's a NEW recording and the DMCA applies normally.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, 301c also says that 'Notwithstanding the provisions of section 303, no sound recording fixed before February 15, 1972, shall be subject to copyright under this title before, on, or after February 15, 2067.' Which would seem to mean that the entirety of Title17 is inapplicable. But then there's 301e, which says 'The scope of Federal preemption under this section is not affected by the adherence of the United States to the Berne Convention or the satisfaction of obligations of the United States thereund
Dastar v. Fox (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure that Mickey Mouse is a trademark, not a copyright. This might mean that anyone could release Fantasia, but only Disney could create a new work.
So you're claiming that Disney could use a "reverse passing off" theory under the Lanham Act. My understanding of the finding of the Supreme Court in Dastar v. Fox [wikipedia.org] is that a trademark cannot be used to extend the term of any of the exclusive rights under copyright in a work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that Mickey Mouse is a trademark, not a copyright. This might mean that anyone could release Fantasia, but only Disney could create a new work.
I'm pretty sure you are wrong. While Mickey Mouse is a trademark, it is also copyrighted. And some even blame Disney for the copyright mess. Mortimer Mouse, released in 29, is still under copyright. And will be for a few more years.
Of course it shouldn't be, but it was extended once or twice.
This is why (Score:4, Informative)
US copyright is currently bullshit. Those songs should have been public domain for 13 years already.
Re:This is why (Score:4, Informative)
> Why? Is it because you want to hear this song?
Nope. Because copyright exists to encourage the current set of artists to create new. Expansive copyright interferes with that and even prevents the publishing of old work too.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Is it because you want to hear this song?
The "why" is that copyright is supposed to be limited. Pretty much everything released since early 1920s is still under copyright. When a copyrighted item from your lifetime won't enter public domain until after you are dead, then the copyright is essentially unlimited.
Kill the DMCA, then (Score:5, Insightful)
The only good part of the DMCA was that it applied a safe harbor protection - if you follow the law, and take stuff down when asked and don't openly solicit unauthorized content, you're safe.
But now apparently that protection doesn't apply to roughly half the things that could potentially be uploaded. So you have to manually review and approve any file, since you can't know whether it falls under DMCA safe harbor or not. Thus eliminating any potential benefit of the DMCA until 2044 or so, longer if they extend copyright durations again (so, longer).
So then, what's the point? It's a law that applies far too harsh penalties, outlaws modifying your own property if it's been magically declared a "protective measure" and is abused more than most tax loopholes. If the one reasonable bit about it has been struck down, well, I think it needs to be gone. And I'm sure Google et al. will be agreeing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes... the minefield is officially open for business. If we thought all of this patent troll craziness was bad, wait for the trolls who license pre-'72 works to start coming out of the woodwork.
Severely Damaging Decison (Score:5, Insightful)
This decision is severely damaging.
I don't think it will be long now before suits are filed against most of the digital locker services to try to "catch" them with pre 1972 content.
And if they manage to shut down the file lockers, they will ramp up the courage to go after YouTube. And with it already proven that it is nearly completely impossible for YouTube to perfectly filter everything automatically, they will lose.
I have decided, and told my children to look at any music they are purchasing and make sure it is not copyrighted by UMG.
I am fine with buying digital music online, but I am not fine with giving any money to a company who supports policies that could destroy the internet.
Companies that try to pursue actions and decisions that cripple the internet are IMHO enemies of mankind.
Extension. (Score:2)
But wouldn't the Copyright extension it enjoys now fall under the federal statute, or did the states grant the copyright extension too?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow its almost like these old recordings have been given Super Copyright powers after falling in a vat of government legislation...
Re: (Score:2)
So they have it BOTH ways? (Score:2)
So the 1972 federal changes did NOT extend the copyrights on older materials? I can't see how it can be both ways. All this time, everyone seems to have been working under the assumptions that all works protected under copyright had their rights extended and all that under the 1972 federal copyright changes. So their protection has been enhanced and the defense provided by the DMCA is not available because the 1972 federal copyright changes do not cover...
That's just idiotic. Another commenter said it e
Always a Federal power, not state... (Score:3)
Article 1, Section 8 [usconstitution.net], clause 8 of the US Constitution says: "The Congress shall have Power .... To promote 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;"
So, it should always have been under federal jurisdiction, not state. Indeed, that should make any state laws regarding it null and void due to federal supremacy.
Unless delegated to the states (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
unless [Congress] specifically did delegate those rights to the states
It did. Another user quoted the statute in question [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, that's an ex-post-facto delegation, it doesn't show where Congress ever delegated the authority to the states in the first place, which would be necessary for the state laws to be valid. So, when you find that statute, you'll have something. Here's a head start for you, you have to find a federal statute that supercedes the first federal copyright act, the Copyright Act of 1790 [wikipedia.org].
Now define authors (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All this says is that the Feds can make IP laws. Nothing about the states not being able to do so if there is no federal coverage.
Re: (Score:3)
Incorrect. Article 6 [usconstitution.net], clause 2, states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
10th Amendment [usconstitution.net] states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
Re: (Score:2)
As this is an explicit grant of authority to Congress, it is exclusively a federal power.
Your quotes certainly don't support that interpretation. Article 6 only says that federal law overrules state law. If there is no conflict, that doesn't apply. The 10th Amendment explicitly reserves powers to the States or to the people; it doesn't take anything away. Delegating your authority doesn't imply giving it up yourself, and there is nothing in the Constitution which would prohibit the States from exercising their authority in this matter (unlike, say, tariffs on interstate commerce).
Re: (Score:2)
But the 10th Amendment makes it clear that the powers explicitly granted to Congress, are NOT granted to the States or the People.
Having it both ways (Score:2)
So big media copyright holders want to have it both ways then. They get to apply federal law to extend the copyright term beyond 56 (28+28) years and then they get to claim that those same grandfathered pre-1976 works are not subject to federal DMCA provisions.
If federal law shouldn't apply then we should strip all post-1976 federal provisions from the copyright of older works. From Wikipedia here are the federal laws that would be nullified:
Copyright Act of 1976 - extended term to either 75 years or life of author plus 50 years; extended federal copyright to unpublished works; preempted state copyright laws; codified much copyright doctrine that had originated in case law
Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 - established copyrights of U.S. works in Berne Convention countries
Copyright Renewal Act of 1992 - removed the requirement for renewal
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) of 1994 - restored U.S. copyright for certain foreign works
Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 - extended terms to 95/120 years or life plus 70 years
Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 - criminalized some cases of copyright infringement
After stripping away these provisions a work created before 1976 w
State Law, State Limits (Score:1)
Don't you just love this crap? (Score:3)
Seriously, so basically, the old copyrighted works gain the extended protections of the Federal laws...BUT NOT the responsibilities and protections to the people.
Do you ever get the feeling that Congress just does what they're paid to do?
Interesting! DMCA is a sword with many edges. (Score:4, Interesting)
US Code Title 17 section 1201(a)(1)(A) says "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title" and then goes on to commit other atrocities against the people and industry. Am I to understand that this court has just said that works copyrighted prior to 1972-02-15, would not count as "works protected under this title"?
Do your best (Score:2)
to comply with all the laws and this is the thanks you get.
Sometimes it's just easier to higher an assassin.
Dear Proprietarian dipshits: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Piracy (the hijacking of boats on the high seas) was never legal. You can't define a word which means "doing an illegal act" and have it be legal or legalized.
Copyright infringement is not piracy (what in most countries still is a civil matter is not a criminal matter). Piracy in it's most liberal definition is the replication of items to look like the original but it's not the original which is also a civil matter (the states should not be in the business of protecting specific corporations) and not crimin
Re: (Score:2)
Piracy (the hijacking of boats on the high seas) was never legal. You can't define a word which means "doing an illegal act" and have it be legal or legalized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Letters of marque did not make *piracy* legal, it made the hijacking of the boats *not piracy*.
Like civil forfeiture laws today.
Re: (Score:2)
The comment I replied to said:
Piracy (the hijacking of boats on the high seas)
So it was giving its own definition for piracy which letters of marque negate.