Meet the DoJ's 'Anti-Piracy' Lawyers 721
Answering your questions will be the attorneys assigned to prosecute intellectual property crimes in the Department of Justice's Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS). Spearheading this group will be Michael O'Leary, Deputy Chief for Intellectual Property who oversees the day-to-day intellectual property enforcement operations. Here is some background on CCIPS and their intellectual property efforts:CCIPS began as a small group within DOJ in 1991, with a focus on network crimes (e.g. hacking into machines, destructive worms and viruses, denial of service attacks), intellectual property crimes (e.g. software piracy and counterfeiting), and electronic evidence issues. CCIPS is part of the Criminal Division of DOJ (which, as its name suggests, is primarily responsible for enforcement of federal criminal laws). Today, the section has grown to almost 40 lawyers, of whom about a dozen focus on IP issues. (Please keep in mind that it will be the IP prosecutors answering questions here, so save your non-IP-related hacking or electronic evidence issues for another time.)
What do the attorneys assigned to IP at CCIPS do? The IP prosecutors in the Section are responsible for establishing and enforcing the Department's overall intellectual property rights enforcement program, including the prosecution of federal intellectual property crimes. In some instances, CCIPS handles the prosecution of intellectual property cases. More frequently they work closely with prosecutors in the U.S. Attorneys' Offices around the country who handle the vast majority of federal criminal prosecutions, both IP and non-IP. They also provide training on IP issues for prosecutors and law enforcement, both domestically and internationally. Other responsibilities include reviewing new policy proposals, legislation, or international agreements related to IP, and providing advice to other government agencies or components of DOJ. The prosecutors also work closely with foreign law enforcement counterparts to coordinate IP enforcement activities around the globe.
While they are committed to fully answering your questions, as Department of Justice attorneys, they are subject to various Federal laws, Department of Justice rules, and ethics rules. They are not permitted to provide legal advice to individual private citizens. This means that there is no attorney-client relationship between CCIPS and Slashdot readers, users, or moderators (and answering questions on Slashdot should not be interpreted as creating one). Therefore, they will not answer questions seeking legal advice. Finally, they cannot discuss ongoing cases, investigations or related hypotheticals.
To learn more about the Department of Justice or the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, visit the following web sites, www.usdoj.gov and www.cybercrime.gov.
Domestic vs. Import (Score:4, Interesting)
Detailed question... (Score:3, Interesting)
" We hear frequent mention in the press, that most internet crime happens from people outsied the US - Skylarov, the Pakistani who exposed the Passport flaw, open gateways from Asia pumping spam etc.
It is really astonishing to note that the most powerful nation with the best detectives and sleuths can be deterred for so long, by a few novices operating from abroad.
Question:
To control piracy, is it enough that the action taken is
Definition of "Fair Use"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Definition of "Fair Use"? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have an extensive record collection and in many cases i also have the same albums on cd.
If i go searching and find all of the music i have on vinyl i'll have downloaded more than enought to have caught your eyes.
Now i have a couple thousand songs in digital that i also have in analog - that which i paid for.
Am i within my rights to have this in both formats?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Definition of "Fair Use"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Though he could have phrased it better, no, he did not ask for legal advice on a personal situation. He asked the larger question (again, phrased poorly in a manner that appears personal) of "Do I have the right to download music I already own in some format, specifically, analog?".
However, I have little doubt the DoJ will not want to touch that one with a 10-foot-C&D, since the RIAA would say "no way in hell" but US law says "probably". Mustn't step on the toes of one's corporate masters, after all.
Re:Definition of "Fair Use"? (Score:4, Insightful)
#include "disclaimer.h"
#undef LEGAL_ADVICE
No, I didn't buy a license to anything -- I bought a copy. I have the right to use that copy as a piece of my property: I lack the right to make and redistribute copies of it, since that is the creator's exclusive right under copyright and I have no license (i.e. permission) to do so.
Copyright does not include the idea of a "license to use". It is concerned only with the right (or lack of a right) to make and distribute copies, derivative works, and suchlike. The rights that a creator receives under copyright are rights to restrict others' copying and the making of derivative works -- not rights to restrict others' noncopying use of legally-obtained copies.
Licensure enters the picture only when copying enters the picture. I do not need a license from J. K. Rowling or her publisher to read The Order of the Phoenix. I also do not need a license to take my purchased copy, cut it up, and make paper airplanes from it -- or to lend it to my friend. I would need a license to legally scan it into my computer, make a PDF of it, and distribute it online -- a license that Rowling et al. have no interest in selling me, certainly.
It is trivially simple to debunk the claim that purchasers of copies of media are purchasing "licenses to use" the media: licenses are always explicit. When authors and publishers negotiate the publisher's purchase of rights to a book (a license), that license is written out as part of a contract. The publisher does not simply accept the physical manuscript pages and pay the author (purchasing a copy, albeit the only copy perhaps): an assignment of copyright licensure is in a contract, entered into knowingly by both sides. Thus, if a media purchaser has no demonstrable contract with a copyright owner, no license can be said to exist ... and you cannot unknowingly or unintentionally enter into a contract!
(Further, a license and the violation thereof is not necessary to make copyright violation illegal: it is illegal already, as the default state of works is to be copyrighted. Copyright is not a matter of violation of contract; it is a matter of violation of the law.)
Copyright is really simple: don't copy and distribute stuff you didn't create, without the creator's permission. Trying to complicate things with "licenses" for the common reader or listener is nothing short of villainy.
Re:Definition of "Fair Use"? (Score:4, Informative)
You CAN make a LEGAL DVD copy of your VHS for your own use. I plan on doing this to all my VHS tapes when the price goes down a bit on DVD recorders.
This is entirely different from making a copy of your friend's DVD of "Where Brother Art Thou" because you own the VHS version. They are NOT the same content, even the movie itself is often higher quality.
I showed an "audiophile" associate of mine that he could make high bitrate MP3's of his records that still sounded like a record when played back (that "vinyl" sound is actually distortion, not some beautiful lossless analog magic most record freaks claim). He then spent WEEKS converting his records to MP3. That perfectly legal. If he sells them now though, he must destroy his "backups" (the mp3's).
By the way, you only have to buy a high quality needle etc once when you want to rip your vinyl, then you'll always hear that high quality from that point on.
Oh, and you didn't buy a license. You bought a copy. See "Doctrine of First Sale" in google, or read that other good reply to your own post.
Answers (Score:3, Funny)
Copy protection? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Copy protection? (Score:3, Interesting)
My question would be whether in the line of investigation, such anti-infringement mechanisms are seen more of a hinderance to the user, and less of a hinderance to the pirate.
Re:Copy protection? (Score:3, Interesting)
On the one hand, these don't seem to slow pirates down that much - anyone can write a serial down, and its a relatively low level of copy protection to crack. On the other, however, it does make it blindingly obvious for anyone passing that these aren't originals. Claiming ignoran
The straightforward question (Score:5, Interesting)
Can you summarize the public good performed by your efforts that a taxpayer, who is neither a stockholder nor employee of the content industry, can realize and should support as a necessary function of the federal government?
Re:The straightforward question (Score:4, Insightful)
That's easy. The 'official' answer is that they prevent piracy from eating up companies' profits so that they can continue making programs for 'consumers' to buy. Otherwise there would be no programs.
(Disclaimer: I am saying that that would be THEIR answer, not mine. OSS is truly a lovely concept.)
Re:The straightforward question (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The straightforward question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The straightforward question (Score:5, Funny)
Judge: Who?
Prosecutor: stinky wizzleteats, our "professional expert technology witness".
Judge: Umm, sure, go ahead.
My question to the DOJ (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The straightforward question (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a good question if answered in earnest, but as it is phrased, is rather easy to weasel out of.
An alternative: The RIAA, MPAA, and other parties with vested interests regularly publish statistics on the effects of piracy. However, a government agency responsible for the enforcement of IP laws should have an independent research arm to gauge the extent of the problem (to decide how much law enforcement resources to invest), and to determine the effectiveness of any particular enforcement action. Who collects your numbers, and what numbers can you publish?
What is the one thing they'd like us to know? (Score:5, Interesting)
What is the one thing that people usually don't understand about you or what you do that you wish they did?
What is the one thing in IP laws you'd change? (Score:5, Interesting)
Question Submission (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Question Submission (Score:5, Interesting)
How many people do you think honestly read that beginning to video tapes that says if you copy that video tape, the FBI could fine you and think to themselves 'Gee whiz, I'd better not copy this video tape then'? The number is dwindling.
And as such, this is becoming common place. How can you battle something that is within every houshold without battling the public at large? Technically, this could be considered a troll but at the same time, it is a serious question. I'd like to see if they DO think this is another war on drugs and whether they think it is unwinnable or not. I know their answer but I would like to see if they will give an honest response instead :)
Regarding law-changing: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Regarding law-changing: (Score:5, Informative)
Definition of Criminal IP Theft/Infringment (Score:5, Interesting)
On to the actual question: Wouldn't the vast majority of cases be handled with the correlated "hacking" or other forms of breaking and entering to steal the property in question, without actually devoting the resources for what is largely a civil matter between individuals or companies? I'm guessing my stance on this comes from a misunderstanding as to what it takes for the government to actually get involved in IP theft/infringement.
Also, I understand that while some companies and individuals do not have the resources to fight IP theft/infringment in court, it seems programs could be setup to assist them. It still seems a large pool of legal resources for what should be a civil matter.
Re:Definition of Criminal IP Theft/Infringment (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't really agree with how you said that.
IP is just a collection of bodies of law, and infringement of some of them is not criminal. Nor is it theft.
What we're asking here is basically whether copyright infringement should be criminalized. And I am asking this. It didn't seem to be important, as far as I can tell, for the first century of the Republic to treat infringement as anything other than a civil matter. If I recall correctly it was not a federal crime until 1897.
Do you think that it is a matter that needs to be criminalized? There are certainly a lot of higher priority crimes out there, and the various industry associations et al are out there all the time suing direct, contributory, and vicarious infringers. Not merely the Napsters of the world, but also music and video pirates (including those offline), and even small time trademark infringers printing up illegal t-shirts. And it is frankly silly to imagine the FBI arresting and the federal government prosecuting someone for building a structure in a manner that infringes on an architect's copyright. But they can.
Why the need then for criminal enforcement? There is no parallel in the world of patents or trademarks as far as I know.
My other question would be:
What reforms, if any, do you think are needed for copyright law; this can include increasing or reducing protection or even the scope of copyright, additional or fewer formalities as a prerequisite for protection, further implementing or leaving international treaties, etc. It can also include revising the code to take care of further developments -- e.g. that 17 USC 511 is bad law after the Seminole Tribe line of cases. If you're concerned about the likelihood of reforms, feel free to address that, but do so seperately, since I'd still like to see what it is that you feel would be ideal.
Simple question (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Simple question (Score:3, Interesting)
When a person shares a file...when is this allowed to be legitamate sharing of files, since fair use is almost done away with by the DMCA.
Legality (Score:5, Interesting)
My question is: As a lawyer, how do you view bills that aim to legalize this sort of activity? When it comes to "making it legal", is there a connection between letting the RIAA perform 'hacks' that would be illegal for private citizens, and allowing pot to be smoked only by those who have a prescription, or only law-enforcement officers to obtain concealed weapon permits? Is there a danger of reaching a point where we go from "The movie studios can shut down your website if they think you're letting people download movies" to "If you think the neighbor stole your mailbox, you can break into his house to get it back"?
Re:Legality (Score:5, Interesting)
To extend this question a bit: If these hacks are made legal, what happens when a legitimate file gets deleted? So far there have been a lot of false positives from the RIAA, so it is likely any sorts of programs that delete infringing files will also delete legitimate ones.
To parallel the above question, if a police officer with a concealed weapon is using it off-duty, or in any non law-enforcement context, they would be in serious trouble. Would the same thing happen to the RIAA/MPAA for deleteing legitimate files, or would they just be considered "casualties of war"?
We don't like your job (Score:3, Interesting)
Laws applicaiton to Interstate (Score:4, Interesting)
Fair Use (Score:5, Interesting)
I hear the term "Fair Use" bandied about all the time in these discussions. From a legal standpoint, does it exist? Do I have a right, that will stand up in a court of law, to make a copy of software/music/data for my own personal use?
If I do, does making an "uncopy-able" product violate that right?
Re:Fair Use (Score:4, Informative)
Wether or not you have the right to make any copies for personal use has very little to do with the Fair Use provisions in copyright law.
Fair Use (Score:5, Interesting)
Is the US really powerless? (Score:4, Interesting)
It is really astonishing to note that the most powerful nation with the best detectives and sleuths can be deterred for so long, by a few novices operating from abroad.
Question:
To control piracy, is it enough that the action taken is within the US, or a global consensus needs to be built up?
You have mentioned the word IP freuently - does it stand for copyright or patents?
Why is the punishment so severe? (Score:5, Interesting)
Suggestion (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, I take it back, I do have a question:
How much effort is being spent these days on investigating old-fashioned for-profit organized-crime software piracy, like selling WinXP out-of-the-box at local computer shows, versus pursuing home computer users sharing files over peer-to-peer networks?
Who's to blame? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Who's to blame? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now who is to blame? The gun manufacturer or the idiot who killed someone? Now there are legitmate legal uses for a gun (skeet shooting, etc), but should the makers be help responsible because the user used it for an illegal activity - NO. P2P has legitimate legal uses, but it is not the makers fault if noone uses it that way. What it all comes down to is the ser made the choice to break the law, and in the end should be the one who is responsible.
just curious (Score:4, Interesting)
Is this a Type of career that you are basically "married" to your job?
What guidelines do you use ? (Score:5, Interesting)
got a chance until now for which I thank you and slashdot.
As we all know, laws cannot be defined like scientific formulas, but rather
have to evolve to suit the needs of the society and to adhere to the spirit
of what the founding fathers intended.
My question is this. When you persue, and prosecute intellectual property
cases (esp. related to music industry) what sort of guidelines do you use
here to differentiate between fair use of listeners and property rights of
conglomerates ? Do you follow all cases int he same way ? Are there
references made to the text by the founding fathers and their ideas regarding
balancing soceities need for creativity and owners(not necessarily creaters) need
for profits ? I would like to know what goes on in the closed rooms where decisions
need to be made regarding allocating tax-payers resources to persue cases where
it may not always be clear where the fair line needs to be drawn. Do you ever
get the feeling that not making a good judgement over long period can lead to civil
unrest in digital domain, as has happened before?
Are there times that you personally feel that enforcing a law to its word is unfair
but have to nevertheless enforce it to adhere to the letter ?
What do you think is the future of some of the current IP laws and future proposals
from a law enforcement perspective ? Do you forsee any major obstacles for enforcement of
some of the stricter digital rights laws that are on the table ?
Thanks again,
Too Bad.
What is the biggest threat (Score:4, Interesting)
Friendly
Value of Goods and Services (Score:5, Interesting)
open Source (Score:5, Interesting)
Can CCIPS prosecution of people who violate licenses of Open Source software?
Cryptography Laws, etc. (Score:5, Interesting)
Is there any sense as to the actual guidance of the cryptography export laws? As an American citizen living in the Netherlands, I've been faced with a lot of problems, especially in this area. For instance, I'm legally unable to get source code for projects such as Kerberos (although it's been possible "through other people." I don't get the feeling people take this very seriously, and was wondering what you guys thought.
How do you wish to punish cyber criminals coming from other countries? For instance, if a Dutch hacker cracks a US corporate server (ignoring US/Dutch relations for a bit), would it be possible to prosecute this person? Are there UN regulations for computer "terrorism" (as I'm sure Bush would have it called, ehehe :)
What are your perspective's of Microsoft's Palladium technology and it's legalitites?
How often do internet security cases get tried?
I'm sure I could go on with tons more, but I think this is probably enough.
Re:Cryptography Laws, etc. (Score:3, Insightful)
They seem more like national security/International scope questions. I don't think that these IP lawyers can answer them.
the obvious question (Score:4, Funny)
Is music piracy theft, or is it just analogous to theft? Or is it analogous to stealing buggy whips?
-a
distinctions (Score:5, Interesting)
I imagine that, from a legal standpoint, there should be a different point of view between a student that copies one software for personal use and a blatant thief who makes money out of selling the same copied software.
However, this question has two assumptions:
- The student would not use the software if it was not available (i.e. it is not a lost sale)
- Both activities are infringing (i.e. this question is not seeking to justify the first case)
I think this question is especially relevant since there are reports that the RIAA is now prosecuting students for "infringements" that are mostly gray areas (i.e. the infringement does not seem proven beyond a reasonable doubt, at least to the public).
Reason, Consistency and Change (Score:4, Insightful)
Knowledge (Score:5, Interesting)
Foreign Agencies (Score:5, Interesting)
Terminology and newspeak (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems that if there are ethical arguments against piracy and other forms of copyright misuse, those arguments can and should be made on their own merits without the introduction of psychological wordplay apparently designed to confuse the public and cloud the debate. Accordingly, what steps are being taken to clarify the correct terminology and to avoid jingoistic use of words like 'theft', 'thieves' and 'stealing' amongst law enforcement and elsewhere?
Why the double standards? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is the government so willing to bend over backwards to help copyright holders, yet it does seemingly little to protect individual fair use rights?
As it stands, if I were to break the copy-protection scheme on a CD to make a backup of it for personal use, I would be in breach of the DMCA, even if I had no intention of making an illegal copy of it. Piracy is already illegal, those who commit it are going to do it anyway - this law simply makes criminals of ordinary people.
What sort of background do IP prosecutors have? (Score:5, Interesting)
Damages (Score:5, Interesting)
What is the DOJ's position about damages companies claim for copyright infringement? Are they taken as-is, or does somebody verify claims?
For example, say Joan Filetrader has a Metallica MP3 in her shared directory and is eventually prosecuted for copyright violation. It seems like it is standard practice for Metallica's copyright holders to do math like "Well the connection was up for 1 month, and her bandwidth is 8Mb/s, that means that she could have transferred 2,500,000 MB that month, and since the MP3 is 5MB she cost us $10,000,000 in sales."
Does the DOJ review that math and do things like verify what the likely impact on the company's bottom line was?
Answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Becoming an investigator (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm asking this as a techie who is considering attending law school. What coursework has been helpful to your jobs? What types of internships or other jobs have prepared you for your work? How many of you worked with technology as a programmer/sysadmin/etc. before going into law and/or law enforcement? Any other advice for a techie interested in IP technology law?
Triage (Score:3, Interesting)
What happen to We The People? (Score:5, Interesting)
the "lost sales" argument (Score:5, Interesting)
Although it is often mediatic, any student of accounting will immediately recognize that the number is merely an estimate of available infringing copies, further inflated by the assumption that every copy would have been bought. Both can be easily altered to craft an alarming number.
(Disclaimer: this question is not seeking to invalidate these numbers, but seeking to know how strongly they are considered from a legal standpoint).
How much time and resources (Score:4, Interesting)
DMCA Anti Circumvention (Score:5, Interesting)
Open Source Software Movement (Score:5, Interesting)
determining damages (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, let's say Pete Pirate grabs a copy of Microsoft Office and the latest Brittany Spears album from some site.
Microsoft has a list price of $499 for a full version of Microsoft Office XP Professional. But no one in the history of computing has ever paid full retail price for any copy of office. warehouse.com, about as mainstream as you can get sells it for $65 dollars less. You can get it for much less if you shop around or purchase it as part of an OEM deal.
Similarly, Brittany Spears's latest cd has a list price of $19. No one pays that either.
So did Pete pirate $520 worth of product or $447? That's about a 14% increase in damages.
And what's to stop a company from artificially inflating the MSRP of a product in order to inflate the damages?
Background (Score:5, Interesting)
A frequent gripe with the geeks here at slashdot, myself included, is that apparently legislators are not sufficiently well informed to create IP laws, frequently proposing and enacting laws which either constrain individual rights in favor of protecting those of big corporations (like the DMCA), or are simply not effective, because they can never patch the frequently referred to "analog hole" which is always a required step for humans to get to the information.
Given that for ethical reasons, you may not give your honest opinion on said legislation since you are required to enforce them, I'd simply like to know if I can trust that you are sufficiently well-informed to give council on these ever emerging new IP legislations. Do you feel that you truly have sufficient technical experience as opposed to your obvious legal ones? Can you elaborate on what type of experience you feel helps to qualify you to truly understand the ramification of these legislations?
Prosecutorial discretion (Score:5, Interesting)
In some cases this decision is clear cut: the largest and costliest criminals should be dealt with first. But in a lot of cases on your Cybercrime page (notably, some of the targets in Operation Decrypt [cybercrime.gov]) you chose to prosecute a few of the "small fry." The same dragnet that netted convictions for a $14 million offender also snared a few guys who only caused losses of $7000. Interestingly, among the latter persons were some of the most skilled embedded security experts alive today.
So, how often do you target offenders based on pressure from the crime victim, high visibility, high (criminal) intelligence, or other factors not directly related to the crime? And who, besides the prosecutor's office, weighs in (indirectly or directly) on these decisions?
Other sources of IP Violation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Other sources of IP Violation? (Appended) (Score:3, Interesting)
Going Native? (Score:5, Interesting)
Given that your department will (in the vast majority on cases) be working on behalf of a very very small number of copyright-holding organisations against potentially millions of nearly anonymous file sharers, how will you prevent this 'going native' phenomenon biasing your investigations in favour of people you having a close working relationship with, and how will you defend yourselves against the inevitable accusations that you have 'gone native' and are a 'private police force' for the copyright holders?
Daniel Peng's "MiniNapster" (Score:5, Interesting)
IP Abuse (Score:3, Interesting)
Question (Score:3, Interesting)
Piracy vs. Sharing (Score:3, Insightful)
In the past, piracy was considered the illegal duplication and resale of software for profit. The key word there is RESALE because money was changing hands.
Sharing was just what it sounds like: sharing copies of software -- where no money changed hands -- which was considered a legitimate marketing vehicle by software companies because it gave them an increased market share and propagated proprietary file formats, even though they didn't immediately realize revenues based on a sale. Instead the model was get people to use it and maybe they would pay for the next version of the software.
Now sharing has transformed into piracy through industry campaigns and media (mis)use of the term, even though no money ever changes hands on file-sharing networks like Kazaa and the ill-fated Napster, or when you load copies of the same software package on two computers.
Can you explain this? I don't recall the courts being used to prosecute for sharing in the past, although the practice has now become common.
What is department's (current) limit of "Fair Use" (Score:3, Insightful)
For software:
- Reverse engineering: For interface / file format compatability? For workalike replacement? How much can proprietary code be examined? What must be done to stay legal (or at least beyond the interest of the Departmen) and PROVE it?
- Code copying: How much before infringement begins? Is there a clear definition of the boundary if it isn't lines of code?
For music/movies/other entertainment programming:
- Time-shifting: Is it "Fair Use" to capture broadcast programming for listening/viewing at some other time?
- Space shifting? Is it "Fair Use" to make a copy to use in your car, workspace computer, etc.?
- Backup? Is it OK to make a backup copy - provided if you sell the copy or original the other is also transferred or destroyed?
- Sampling for inclusion of snippets in other works? If so, how much is "Fair Use" before "Infringement" begins.
In either software or entertainment programming: Does the department interpret the DMCA or other anti-"piracy" laws as trumping "Fair Use" rights, such that activity that would be legal under copyright "Fair Use" alone is illegal under anti-piracy laws?
In particular: Does the department believe that defeating copy-protection is a crime even if it is only used for activities that would be "Fair Use" if copy-protection were NOT defeated?
I recognize that this is both a matter of policy and court rulings, and that both are subject to change in the future. I also realize that the opinions of the department and the courts may differ - what I'm after is the department's current interpretation of what MAY be illegal and IS likely to result in prosecution by the department.
Regrets at the end of the day? (Score:3, Interesting)
My question has to do with how you feel at the end of the day. I realize that opinions will probably vary among team members, but I am curious as to how many of you go home at the end of the night feeling regret over your role in prosecution? In other words, do you really believe the laws you are using to prosecute are Just or are you tossing aside your own stake in the outcome ala "The Law is the law"?
To clarify, the phrase "Everyone deserves a good defense" can be applied to the classic example of the defense lawyer who defends someone who they know is guilty of some heinous act.
When asked to prosecute a case, do you consider the long-term, chilling effects a "win" could potentially have on research and development, fair use, etc. and does it leave you feeling soiled or do you honestly believe it is your patriotic or moral duty to prosecute using laws in which you may or may not completely believe? Can you refuse to take a case based on your own convictions or does that equate to professional suicide (at least with regards to your position with the DOJ)?
The Fundemental Difference (Score:3, Interesting)
Who are you hunting most of the time? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure it's impossible for a group of 40 people to round up every IP criminal. How do you ensure that you aren't ignoring a piece of the pie?
What's legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Copying a CD to tape to listen to in my car
2) Ripping a CD to listen to on my computer at work
3) Loaning a CD to a friend
4) Ripping a copy of a CD and giving those files to a friend
5) Ripping a copy of a CD and putting those files on Kazaa
6) Selling copies of the CD
Related to this, how does the volume of these activities influence them? Is it legal to make one copy of a CD for one friend? What if it's for 100 friends? or 500 friends? We can talk endlessly about the spirit of the law and the ethics of it, but the letter of the law is critically important here.
Question regarding the DMCA and copyright terms (Score:5, Interesting)
Reverse engineering, and policy question (Score:5, Interesting)
What are the department's policies and guidelines about whether an instance of reverse engineering violates intellectual property rights? Would the department consider criminal action against someone who reverse engineered a product if the click-through license said not to?
What factors would the department consider if trying to decide whether a security researcher's work was legitimate?
Does the department recognize a public interest in publicizing flaws in commercial software, even if it involves extracing proprietary information?
Finally, from your personal perspective as believers in the rule of law, what are the top two or three changes you see as necessary in US IP law?
Kevin Mitnick (Score:3, Interesting)
How has the Justice Department's methods of assigning damages, investigation tecniques, and tech savvy (ie. telling the difference between hype and fact) improved since the Mitnick case? And would Mitnick have been tried as severely if he was being tried by today's Justice Department as opposed to the 'wild west' of the computing era?
Causes of Illegal Sharing and Costs of Enforcement (Score:3, Insightful)
Damages (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm disturbed by the way large conglomerates determine and demand damages based upon projected profits should a product's IP have not been violated and piracy had not occurred.
It's a somewhat flawed argument to claim that $5,000,000 worth of software was confiscated in a piracy raid when off the shelf, at the point of purchase, the software would only have had a $2,000 street value (I'm referring to how much the pirates price the products).
Basic economic theory would point out to you that the lower the cost of ownership, the greater the demand for that product. Even if the retail value of a shop's pirated products had been worth millions, I can't imagine how they would have been able to sell these products that the prices they were pegging it at.
Although piracy is wrong per se, how much in lost profits should a company be allowed to attribute to piracy? I think cases where students from universities are hauled up for file sharing and the penalties imposed on them are totally absurd although the crime is similar (piracy) but the damage, obviously can't possibly be so high.
How does the law make sense of this? How far should IP be protected and would we ever see an end to some of the whimsical claims made by IP owners?
Why are we paying for this? (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, it is at least much more difficult to place prior restraint on and/or proper defenses around music, names, and ideas than on and/or around a house, jewelry, and a car.
I'm not opposed to copyright (and patent, and trademark) protection, and in fact, I think such things are desirable as incentive to produce, although the current copyright term is so ridiculously long as to be an anti-incentive.
However, it is not clear to me that we the public instead of they, the copyright holders, should be paying for the investigation and punishment of violators, especially given the much greater scope of the problem and consequent cost versus the protection of natural property.
After that long-winded preface, my question is therefore: why has the government chosen to make IP enforcement a criminal, rather than civil, matter, given the added costs, both in fiscal and libertarian terms?
Kyle
The DMCA (Score:5, Interesting)
And, of course, what are your views on this law, has it actually helped to slow the tide of copyright infringement, or not? And considering the boundryless nature of the internet, do you expect that a law, such as this, or any IP law for that matter, will be effective for much longer?
Sklyarov case, lessons learned? (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you monitor your family? (Score:4, Funny)
Purchase vs. License (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet the movie studios insist that we have not purchased the content, but merely licensed it. It seems that the studios are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Isn't this be a clear-cut case of false advertising? If so, why isn't the FTC cracking down on this?
Darn Shames Abound... (Score:4, Interesting)
Thanks,
James Hare
This won't be taken seriously, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, sharing copyrighted music and films is a crime. However, I see no justification for the insane penalties associated with file sharing and priacy. It seems that companies can make up some absurd figure in the billions, claiming it to be actual damages, without any sort of proof they have really lost that much at all from file sharing.
Can you please enlighten me as to why software and media "pirates" as well as other "computer criminals" are in many cases treated worse than violent criminals who use weapons and rapists?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Piracy "funds other crime" (Score:4, Interesting)
How much does this actually happen? Are there any figures tracing this kind of criminal re-investment?
Paul.
"... under penalty of perjury ..." (Score:5, Interesting)
In copyright law, 17 USC Section 512(c)(3)(vi) states that all notifications of copyright violations sent to ISPs must contain
(emphasis mine).Do you know of any cases in which the sender of an invalid takedown notice -- such as the RIAA claiming Penn State University Emeritus Professor Peter Usher's lecture on radio-selected quasars was, in fact, an mp3 from the musician Usher -- has been successfully charged with perjury? Or do you allow copyright holders some "fudge factor" with the perjury aspect, since
If copyright holders are allowed leeway, can we expect to see similarly loose definitions of perjury creep into the legal system? If the police are looking for a "Caucasian male, age 50-60, bald, 200-225 pounds," can I testify in a court of law that the 18 year-old caucasian male with a ponytail, weighing 140-150 pounds, is in fact the suspect since he is, after all, a caucasian male?
I realize that's more than one question and that they're slightly loaded, but I'd appreciate any comments on how seriously the DoJ takes the perjury clause of the takedown notices.
Thank you.
-jdm
What services for an open source copyright holder (Score:5, Insightful)
Contrary to what many lay-people believe, open source software relies (heavily) on copyright and the legal system that assures those rights. In fact, among Slashdot readers are a large number of people who own copyrights to open source software. My question is what services your organization offers in practice to "real people". Our community creates software whose quality competes with that of multi-billion dollar corporations, so we clearly have a significant interest in having our own rights as authors protected. We all have no doubt that if Jack Valenti finds a website selling pirated versions of his movies that law enforcement will descend upon the infringer with a fury comparable to that weilded against drug smugglers and violent criminals.
Few among us would really object to enforcing the law against such a clear violation, however, I cannot help but wonder if there is equity in the system. I wonder whether an individual author's rights as a copyright owner would be similary protected? For example, if substantial quantities of code that one of us has written ends up in a company's product in a way that clearly violates the terms of an open source licence, how would the infringed copyright holder go about seeking your services?
What policy governs your decision whether or not to act on behalf of a copyright owner when a complaint is raised? What assures that the heavy hand of the law protects an individual's rights with the same fury that it defends those of the RIAA or a major software corporation?
DRM and the future (Score:4, Interesting)
My concern here is that the current push to require DRM support in hardware seems to be focused on securing the right of profitability for the copyright holder of a given work. What legal protection does an author have to ensure that this work also becomes accessible when that copyright expires?
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but under current US law (DMCA), is it not illegal to remove the content from a DRM container, even if it is simply to transfer it to a different DRM container? If this is true, then archiving an existing work from one media to another becomes impossible. That, in turn, implies that any digital work which falls out of publication will be lost when existing copies become damaged, or are made obsolete. Are there any provisions for a legal way to transfer DRM-protected works to a non-DRM (or "empty password" accessible DRM) container once they enter public domain?
Prosecution of Open Source IP violations (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm asking this because Federal prosecutions often have monetary thresholds attached to them, but this is hard to define in the case of Open Source...
Thx.
Chris.
Here's my goddamned question: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Here's my goddamned question: (Score:4, Informative)
Our favorite law, the DMCA, changed all that. The DMCA changed it from a civil action to a criminal action, making copyright law violations federal crimes.
Just another reason (that hasn't been talked too much about) to hate this vile piece of legislation.