DOJ Opposes Extending DOJ Copyright Authority 141
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The White House has opposed the bipartisan bill that would create copyright cops on the grounds that it would cause the Department of Justice to end up 'serving as pro bono lawyers for private copyright holders.' And while they do occasionally prosecute criminal copyright infringement, they have no intention of dabbling with civil cases because, 'taxpayer-supported department lawyers would pursue lawsuits for copyright holders, with monetary recovery going to industry.' At this rate, the discovery of winged suiformes would appear to be imminent."
Yey! Victory! (Score:5, Funny)
A victory caused by laziness is still a victory, right?
Re:Yey! Victory! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yey! Victory! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's called "wu wei," action through inaction. If you prefer, knowing when inaction is the best action.
Maybe our government is going Taoist?
Re:Yey! Victory! (Score:4, Interesting)
It's called "wu wei," action through inaction. If you prefer, knowing when inaction is the best action.
Maybe our government is going Taoist?
Actively opposing a bill is not inaction.
The other reason Bush's Administration is opposing this bill was left out of TFA
http://www.itworld.com/government/55331/us-doj-copyright-protection-bill-flawed [itworld.com]
The legislation would also require the U.S. president to create an intellectual property enforcement office in the White House, and it would expand some civil and criminal penalties for copyright infringement. The requirement to create a new office in the White House would be a "legislative intrusion into the internal structure and composition of the president's administration," the letter said.
Bush & Cheney would never allow a precedent like that to be set.
It would be an enormous step back for their Unitary Executive Theory [TM].
If you think Bush's Administration is going to "wu wei" themselves through this, you've got it all wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Good for Bush! (Score:2)
Re:Yey! Victory! (Score:4, Insightful)
You people never cease to amaze me, the Bush administration defends your rights and you blast them with rhetorical bullshit.
You people?!?!? What do you mean by that?!? Just kidding.
Of course the rhetoric is important even if the outcome was good. It's good that Saddam is not ruling anything anymore, but the rhetoric was clearly bullshit and set up a bad precedent. (There were other mistakes too, notably what we did after invading, but let's keep focused here.)
Bush and Cheney have done everything to increase the power of the president short of claiming infallibility. If the administration had been opposing this because it's idiotic and would be spending taxpayer money to sue college kids for sharing songs with their friends, hey way to suddenly grow a brain bush! But it's not, they're saying "No, because you can't tell the president what to do."
It's important because if the RIAA comes back with "okay fine, same proposal, just without the requirement to make a new office," Bush is going to say "Okay, great!" So he's still a worthless sack o' crap.
Re:Yey! Victory! (Score:5, Insightful)
You people?!?!? What do you mean by that?!? Just kidding.
He means "you people," who refuse to give Bush an inch even when he makes the right decision for the right reasons. I suppose you could call them the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the left.
But it's not, they're saying "No, because you can't tell the president what to do."
And he's right, and they shouldn't be able to. It's the whole point behind the separation of powers in the US Constitution. Am I still angry at Bush for his earlier power grabs? Yes I am, and even right-wingers should be too. But this decision is a response to the unjustified meddling of Congress in the affairs of the executive branch, and that's just as important a consideration as "this requirement is a waste of time." You don't fix earlier bad precidents by setting more.
Re: (Score:2)
And he's right, and they shouldn't be able to. It's the whole point behind the separation of powers in the US Constitution.
True, but they've trampled all over seperation. As they've left it, it's an excuse for the administration not to do something, it's not actually a limit on his power. Seperation of powers is not something there for the convinience of the president, to ignore when he wants it and use when he wants to avoid something.
Also I was pointing out that a lack of further reasoning for denying it means it's not out of the question. If they come back with the same plan to use taxpayer money for their heavy-handed co
Re: (Score:2)
Did you fail to read the article or story submission? I mean they rejected because "it would cause the Department of Justice to end up 'serving as pro
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like how Johnson staved Social Security? (Score:2)
Johnson is the one who put Social Security revenues into the general fund. Talk about starving something. Now the SS "trust fund" consists of IOUs in a file cabinet.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not Taoist, it's just that after years of doublespeak they can't figure out what they were going to do.
Re:Yey! Victory! (Score:5, Interesting)
A victory caused by laziness is still a victory, right?
Its one thing to permit far fetched litigation. Its another thing to supply all lawyers needed for free.
I think the RIAA realized .. if we're going to enforce copyright ... enlisting public defenders is probably __not__ going to help. So they quit pushing.
This is as reassuring as it is funny.
Re:Yey! Victory! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
WTF? The White House doing something that isn't brain-dead stupid?
Don't worry, I'm sure they'll do something [yahoo.com] to make up for it...
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The White House isn't brain-dead stupid. It just has different interests than the common citizen. That's why a lot of the things it does seem off.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd mod you insightful if I had the points.
True on both sides of the aisle (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll get flamed hard core for saying this but GWB actually seems to be getting more reasonable as his term winds down
The real deal is that you need to have the political party opposite of the President to be the one that holds Congress. Clinton of 1992 and 1993 was just terrible but once he lost the Congress and had to bend to the other side, partisanship went up, but the country was run far more effectively. Similarly, Bush being checked by the Democrats is actually more moderate because he has to be. When you have the other side of the aisle to contend with on a daily basis, you have to learn consensus to survive.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Being checked because you can't just do something without at least talking to the other side helps a lot. You know, all the US really needs is a third party the same size of the Dems and Reps and there'll always be at least two parties involved. I hear the Netherlands have a funds for helping developing countries set up a multiparty system...
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly, Bush being checked by the Democrats is actually more moderate because he has to be. When you have the other side of the aisle to contend with on a daily basis, you have to learn consensus to survive.
I can't bring myself to agree as I witness what I hope is the last great fuckup of his administration: the handing over of $700 billion dollars of taxpayer money to a select group of rich old white guys as a reward for screwing up our economy for their gain.
Partisanship is WHY Clinton was terrible (Score:2)
Let's recall, Clinton ran as a new Democrat, the Democratic Leadership Council type of moderate (now called "Blue Dog" Democrats) who claimed he would govern from the center. But once Clinton got in office, the partisan libs in Congress told him, "here's how it's gonna be." This was a disaster for Clinton politically, and the Dems
Re: (Score:2)
Roosevelt made things worse during the Great Depression.
As usual, take the opposite of wingnut beliefs and you have reality.
but his obsession with controlling all of the gold
Yes, I just don't see why he'd want strong backing for the dollar after a complete collapse of the economy. No reason at all. Drastic times call for drastic measures.
his failure to grasp supply side economics
Thank god for that. Supply side economics is nothing more than a rationalization for funneling the benefits of the economy to t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
sooner or later the rest of the World is going to stop financing our deficits and we'll be looking at serious tax increases and/or spending cuts (likely both) to make the books balance.
When that happens we can just default on all those foreign held bonds. After all, if the rest of the world has already decided to stop buying more bonds, there ain't much for us to lose at that point.
Re: (Score:2)
Tens of trillions of Chinese-held dollars dumped on the currency markets won't be pretty. Let's not go there.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't hold dollars, they hold dollar-denominated assets -- mostly bonds -- and it is only roughly 1 trillion, not tens.
Re: (Score:2)
First off, the "full faith and credit of the United States Government" is something that must never be devalued.
Gee, you haven't been paying attention. What I suggest is something to be done AFTER that has already happened.
they would simply nationalize all of the American investments in mainland China.
What, you think they won't do that anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree, it's not that he's more reasonable now it's that he's hoping to save his legacy. Having won his second election he's been focused more on how he will be viewed in the future.
That and the fact that some time in 2006 people started to turn on him. I mean just look at the polls now versus when he was still actually able to do something other than hobble the legislature.
not brain-dead, brain-different (Score:2)
The White House doing something that isn't brain-dead stupid?
The reptilian brain of a bureaucracy does not work in quite the same way as a human's brain. Lack of movement does not mean the reptile is dead or ignoring events around it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not laziness so much as self interest.
The basic problem here, the one that led to this law
in the first place, is the fact that real law
enforcement types don't want this crap. They want
"sexier" assignments that will look better in terms
of promotion.
This is about "career minded opportunists" rather
than laziness. FBI agents want to do things that
the FBI has been traditionally known for ( drugs,
armed robbery, kidnapping, terrorism).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
FBI agents want to do things that the FBI has been traditionally known for ( drugs, armed robbery, kidnapping, terrorism).
...I thought that was the CIA?
Re: (Score:2)
...I thought that was the CIA?
You're thinking on the wrong side of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, this is simply the DOJ remaining consistent [slashdot.org].
"Immanent"? (Score:1, Offtopic)
"Immanent"? If you're going to try and talk fancy, you really should make doubly sure you are actually spelling correctly.
Re:"Immanent"? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"Immanent"? (Score:4, Funny)
The post above is correct. They're version of the word is not correct. There pretty stupid at the DOJ. Their, I said it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Here here!!
Re: (Score:2)
There pretty stupid at the DOJ.
Here here!!
Wear? Wear?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
OK, this is getting rediculous.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Well, not quite. "lose" and "loose" are both common words, and it's easy to see how people get confused about them. I doubt, however, that the submitter knew the word "immanent" and just confused it with "imminent". He just misspelled it, and by accident happened to spell another real and extremely uncommon word.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's about 15 times less common than "imminent", according to Google, and at least 30 times less common than "inherent", and those are somewhat uncommon words already.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
The mistake made in the summary indicates someone who knew the sound of the word, but not the spelling.
Allow me ...
Re: (Score:2)
No, because the words are pronounced the same, thanks to the fact that in English, the vowels in unstressed syllables are reduced to schwas.
Re: (Score:2)
And "suiforms"?? I find (though not in a dictionary) "entelodonts and oreodonts" (pigs?). So, when "pigs fly". Have to say though that the fragment :
the discovery of winged suiformes would appear to be immanent
has a certain intriguing cryptic elusiveness that - with a bit of checking - resolves to "finding pigs flying only in your mind", or to "finding piggy things flying that are an essential part of the universe" (perhaps the LHC will be tuned to finding them next).
Re: (Score:2)
Is this the year when they finally Immanentize the Eschaton?
Great idea! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea why you think they are thinking with any kind of common sense? Bush was thinking when he ordered the invasion of Iraq. What happened is that this is an election year, and the GOP has had nothing but trouble with the DOJ in the past 18 months. This would only serve as a source of more folly for politicians in the GOP who wish to be elected this year. The puppet masters told Bush to let/make this happen so that things don't get to out of kilter for the elections. Copyright cops would be the sou
Re: (Score:2)
opyright cops would be the sound bite to really get the youth vote out to the polls this election, and who would win then? Who?
Unless he's running for a third term not Bush.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright cops would be the sound bite to really get the youth vote out to the polls this election, and who would win then? Who?
Someone who might investigate the myriad allegations against the Bush administration, that's who.
At long last.. Thinking! (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe with the possibility of having to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out the financial sector, governmental offices are at long last waking up to the fact that they need to balance the books on behalf of the taxpayer. It's all very nice having campaign contributions from industry, but if there's no money in the coffers, winning the election will be a poisoned chalice. Already, there's no money in the coffers, but being seen to shell out more taxpayer money to support industry, with no return to the taxpayer, is pretty much political suicide in today's climate.
For the last god alone knows how many years, the basic taxpayer has been quiescent, going about the daily work, with the odd grumble or two, and the government has been able to get away with the odd outcry now and then. At the moment, a lot of people are looking long and hard at where every penny they pay goes. Not quite civil unrest, but certainly large scale discontent that could easily escalate.
Re: (Score:1)
It's nice to see the government passing on an opportunity to spend.
Not thinking, pandering (Score:2)
Did you hear the implied, "Show me the money!" in the article?
What is more profitable for the DOJ, going after drug crimes/criminals and confiscating cash and cars or going after copyright violators, and giving any revenue generated to the RIAA?
The next batch of proposed laws will have to cut the DOJ in on a slice of the action. Maybe let them resell the confiscated servers or take the money found on/near the "criminals".
Re:Not thinking, pandering (Score:5, Insightful)
The next batch of proposed laws will have to cut the DOJ in on a slice of the action. Maybe let them resell the confiscated servers or take the money found on/near the "criminals".
No good. They still wouldn't go for it. It's one thing to RICO seize the property of drug rings, because they have mansions, Ferraris, and hefty bags stuffed with cash. Copyright infringers have what, exactly? A $1200 Dell computer and a poster of Marilyn Manson? There's no money in copyright infringement.
From the WHITE HOUSE? (Score:5, Funny)
I guess a broken clock is still right twice a day. Either that, or the absurdity of the proposal was glaringly obvious, even to them.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm shocked.
Seriously. But then I think of all the mistakes of the current White House administration and the shock just ebbs away. Perhaps those pulling the strings at this moment in time are the ones told to previously "shut it" ?
I can't envisage the EU Commission (nor the Council who effectively take a deciding vote on all things undecided) going this way. Copyright lobbying over here is in a *bad* state. We have a non democratic mechanism (ie: the Commission and Council, qualified voting etc) that has o
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This position is consistent with actual conservative beliefs, e.g., smaller government, less government interference. At least one apparently still exists in the administration.
The dems have been in the pocket of the trial lawyers and entertainment industry for years. That's why Pelosi, Reid, etc., shill for bills like this. Scary.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Seriously. Who is this AG and where is he hiding Michael Mukasey?
Re: (Score:2)
Am I reading this right? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
(Posting to reverse mod mistake.)
It's quite simple (Score:4, Funny)
The answer is really very simple. You just missed the other news report with the headline: 'RIAA Refuses to Cough Up USD700 billion in "Campaign Funds"'
Re:Am I reading this right? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The Bush administration is opposing sweeping legislation granting it the ability to prosecute civil cases of copyright infringement" I mean, it's early so maybe I am sleep-hallucinating that the Bush Administration or DoJ actually refuses power.
They're not refusing power so much as refusing to take responsibility. And rightly so! Why should the taxpayers foot the legal bills for the **AA?
Re: (Score:1)
Limiting the next in power? (Score:1)
Maybe they're expecting that it's likely they'll lose the election, so they'll just drop a few last-minute barriers in place to reduce the Democrat's power if/when they take office...
Translation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
"Hollywood, send more money to GOP."
What does this say about the Democratic party when the bill breezes through their hands unfettered? And the Republicans are saying no?
Re:Translation (Score:5, Informative)
What does this say about the Democratic party when the bill breezes through their hands unfettered? And the Republicans are saying no?
It says that Hollywood has paid the Democrats rather well and not so much for the Republicans. But then again, it's been that way for a very long time [opensecrets.org] -- Hollywood makes no secret of favoring the Democrats and Democratic causes. Some of the largest contributors to the Democratic Party and to Democratic candidates for office include some of the biggest names in Hollywood -- Steven Spielberg, David Geffen, etc.
bipartisan means both sides, no? (Score:2)
Hmm, i thought it wasn't purely the Dems. Still, probably the Republicans get more money from oil.
If only the copyright act were to be repelled... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If Imaginary Property is real, where are the Imaginary Laws to protect it? Can't I just imagine someone breaking down my door and hauling me off to court to be slapped with a hundred thousand dollar fine? If that's the case, can I just pretend I sent them the money? Seriously, I love music, and the concept of imaginary property is plausible...but if it all sounds the same, whose imagination did it come from? Who really owns it? We need new styles and fresh sounds. Why doesn't someone invent a new inst
Be for you get to be to optimistic (Score:5, Interesting)
This seems to stop the DOJ from prosecution these cases with tax money. That is NOT a-typical of the Bush administration. What they would rather see is that the record labels have their own private police force that the record labels pay for. Small goverment, big business. Makes perfect sense.
Remember that if it is the DOJ that prosecutes these cases AND the only one who can do this, that would put copyright infringement up against all other crimes for attention. Plus there would be far more oversight of the cases.
Remember what happened in germany? There these cases belong firmly in the hands of the justice department and then justice department told the record industry that they can't be arsed. Case closed.
That is NOT what happened in the US so far. In the US, the justice department can't be arsed BUT the record labels are given more and more powers (or not being stopped) from investigating and prosecuting these cases themselves. If you are worried about to much police power, you should be even more worried about police power in private hands.
Re:Be for you get to be to optimistic (Score:5, Insightful)
WOW.
So you are actually arguing in SUPPORT of government funded private lawsuits for big business.
I never thought I would see the day when an argument for the government footing the bill for RIAA suits on slashdot got modded "Insightful."
Yes the copyright cops would be competing for funding with real crimes. OK. So they only get 3 million a year to do copyright suits. There is NOTHING in the bill that stops private copyright suits also. RESULT: RIAA continues its current racket of suing the little guy, and now the government jumps in on the action too!
but I forgot, if the white house opposes something we must be in favor of it.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Ah yes.. but remember that this is Slashdot and everything the Bush administration does must be seen as being worse than Hitler. So, even though the DoJ did something people on this site generally agree with, we have to all change our positions and say that this means the Constitution has been destroyed and America is a concentration camp on principle.
Re: (Score:2)
The mods were confused because he used the word "arsed".
Re:Be for you get to be to optimistic (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about trespass. Yes it is illegal to trespass on anothers property, but you don't expect the police to actively seek out trespassers. That is the job of the landowner, to watch out for their own property, and call for help if and when the need arises.
Christ you don't want the police having even more responsibilities do you ? Look at the situation with emergency phone calls now. There are hundreds if not thousands of twats who expect the police to act as a free taxi service, a free search engine and all sorts of stupid things. Imagine the situation where you could phone the police and complain about copyright infringement. Most people don't understand copyright anyway and giving them an easy to use one stop shop for reporting "infringements" would be ludicrous.
I think the clue is in the name - Department of Justice. It's where you go to realise justice. They don't come to you unless you are a criminal.
With rights come responsibilities. In the case of copyrights, those responsibilities are being ignored. Copyright is a limited term right to be the sole entity that can copy a work. But that limited term is being extended instead of curtailed. That is what the DoJ should focus on, not doing the dirty work for the irresponsible rights holders.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not the governments job to actively seek out and defend against infringements on private property.
Just to play devils advocate, what about government prosecution of theft? Why shouldn't the victim need to prosecute the thief to enforce their private property rights? Does the distinction hinge on the type of property (copyright versus real, or "temporary" property versus "permanent" property), or something else? Presumably catching a thief is typically not harder than catching an infringer - so there isn't a greater need to involve the investigative ability of the Feds. Or is the distinction simply
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, the Bush administration is interested in a big central government (the great debate in the US has never been about big or small government, but big or small federal government). However, the "big" government they envision applies only to the executive.
Since congress is pushing this through, they're not interested. If they had gotten to this idea first, they would've done a PR blitz for it that would put Apple's marketing department to shame.
Now that making available is no longer sufficient
An idea (Score:1)
there are Constitutional matters with the bill as (Score:2)
there are Constitutional matters with the bill as well so even if passed the gov will end spend a lot just on that going to court.
Re: (Score:2)
there are constitutional matters with the patriot act too.
I just wonder if this decision isn't self-serving somehow, or if they realize that the jig is up and we'd call bullshit on them.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with the Bush Administration? (Score:3, Funny)
I agree with the Bush Administration on something? Quick! Everyone duck! There are aviating porcine about!
New word proposal (Score:5, Interesting)
I would like to propose that we adopt a new word in the English language:
Buypartisan: A bill sponsored by politicians from both parties who are both being paid off.
Pinch me i must be dreaming (Score:3, Funny)
A government agency not jumping on a chance to expand its authority and funding?
Perhaps the Mayans ware right and the world is about to end after all.
Remember the Unitary Executive (Score:3, Insightful)
Others have mentioned this, but well-nested in other comment threads.
The Bush administration (in particular, Dick Cheney) has rejected this primarily because this is an "intrusion of the legislature" into the affairs of the executive. Cheney has resented any Congressional oversight or involvement in the White House ever since Nixon resigned, and after he failed to get Bush 41 to ditch Congress, he got Bush 43 to let him run the White House and thus ditch Congress directly. The (then) Republican majority went along with this, because they had a Republican in the White House to rubber-stamp their bills.
In this case, conflicting priorities have turned this very dangerous bill out for the better. Even if Congress passes and later overrides a veto, Cheney and/or Bush will simply starve it out of significance, if not existence. But be wary of the media industry cartels (RIAA, MPAA, BSA members-- others will likely list them up) lobbying the White House directly to get the President to appoint a copyright czar by executive order!
A good reason not to vote for Obama (Score:2)
And who is the media industry donating the most money to [opensecrets.org]?
And Slashdotters think Bush is the enemy.
Re:Presidential Comments on Imaginary Property (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of what you classify as "stealing" should be in the
same category as trading copies of Beowulf or The Republic.
The state of the law when you were born is consistent with
this notion. It was changed to suit a small number of
corporations.
Don't let actual facts get in the way of feeling morally superior.