Slashdot Log In
DOJ Doesn't Like the Idea of A Copyright Czar
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Dec 14, 2007 03:06 PM
from the who-does-really dept.
from the who-does-really dept.
sconeu writes "Seems as if the DOJ is not particularly happy about HR 4729, the 'Copyright Czar' bill. The Deputy AG told Congress that the current structure works quite effectively. 'Panel members also expressed concern over Section 104 of the bill, which would allow a copyright owner to collect statutory damages for each copyrighted work that is stolen. Detractors fear that this provision could result in protracted lawsuits ... Section 104, however, would penalize criminals on a per-song basis, so if someone pirated a motion picture soundtrack that had songs from 12 different artists, the pirate would be charged with 12 separate offenses and be subject to exorbitant fees.'"
Related Stories
[+]
U.S. to Get New IP Czar 320 comments
tetraminoe writes "Reuters is reporting that Congress's latest spending bill provides for the creation of a federal copyright enforcement czar. According to the article, 'Under the program, the president can appoint a copyright law enforcement officer whose job is to coordinate law enforcement efforts aimed at stopping international copyright infringement and to oversee a federal umbrella agency responsible for administering intellectual property law.' It also gives $2 million to the National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council (NIPLAC), created in the '90s and never funded. NIPLAC will work to protect American IP overseas and oversee enforcement."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
What does "stolen" mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What does "stolen" mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA gets the money. Metallica doesn't see a penny.
Parent
Re:What does "stolen" mean? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps they are balking at that idea and possibly considering the repercussions of the members of the RIAA and the MPAA gleefully sending Americas children to prison for copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel that, if at all possible, the rules would be re-written in such a way where in that situation, you would be found at fault for all infringement as you, the "owner" of the music failed to keep it from being pirated.
If the RIAA is attempting to collect damages from secondary piracy that originally resulted from sharing the file even once, I fear they would do it with physical media if at al
All Pau... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What makes you think things are going to go differently this time?
Re:All Pau... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:All Pau... (Score:4, Insightful)
The unfair taxation which fomented the American Revolution was judged to be preventing merchants from making a living. Add to that the insult of excluding British merchants from the taxes and tariffs, and you've got a revolt.
The RIAA's tactics aren't preventing anyone from making a living--at least, not directly. Like the 18th century British crown, they're woefully out of touch, but they're not so much exacting taxes and tariffs as they are filing ridiculous lawsuits based on wild accusations.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not about stealing, dipshit. It's about choice.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've developed a fondness for the classics: Mozart, Bach, those guys: Not the Stones or Beatles.
Funny enough, I've always listened to classical music (and still do) and also listen to rock, but lately I've been on a Beatles kick. I've actually been thinking of doing a Slashdot journal post on the subject.
The Beatles were *unbelievably* good. You really can't appreciate them until you sit and listen to all their albums. The sheer number of styles and genres they either touched on or flat-out invented i
It this passes... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am sure that many of the people that provide their information and shape their policies know this, but I also doubt they are telling.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, I'm not sure how many watch John Stewart four times a week, but it would do a world of good if they would watch Jimmy Stewart once a week...
Mr. Smith goes to Washington
It's a Wonderful Life
You Can't Take It With You
Any of these three movies, if taken to heart, would make a world of difference if our Senators and Reps watched weekly.
Well, so much for wishful thinking, now I'll put my Scintillating Robe of Cynicism +2 and my Tinfoil Hat of Protection fro
Re:It this passes... (Score:4, Informative)
California has 53 reps. The committee has 6 of those, including the chair Howard Berman.
Florida has 25 reps. The committee has 3 of these.
9 of the 24 reps come from Florida (Disney) and California (Disney / Hollywood). Full list follows.
CA=6
FL=3
NC=2
OH=2
VA=2
TX=2
WI=1
GA=1
IN=1
NY=1
TN=1
UT=1
MI=1
Rep. Adam Schiff [D-CA]
Rep. Anthony Weiner [D-NY]
Rep. Betty Sutton [D-OH]
Rep. Brad Sherman [D-CA]
Rep. Christopher Cannon [R-UT]
Rep. Darrell Issa [R-CA]
Rep. Elton Gallegly [R-CA]
Rep. Frederick Boucher [D-VA]
Rep. Henry Johnson [D-GA]
Rep. Howard Berman [D-CA]
Rep. Howard Coble [R-NC]
Rep. James Sensenbrenner [R-WI]
Rep. John Conyers [D-MI]
Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX]
Rep. Melvin Watt [D-NC]
Rep. Mike Pence [R-IN]
Rep. Ric Keller [R-FL]
Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R-VA]
Rep. Robert Wexler [D-FL]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX]
Rep. Steve Cohen [D-TN]
Rep. Steven Chabot [R-OH]
Rep. Tom Feeney [R-FL]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA]
Parent
The real reason for unhappiness (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Bottom Line (Score:4, Insightful)
Taken past a certain point, though, it impairs the ability of the court system to be responsive, and brings massive costs to the agencies which have to support the infrastructure.
We're getting to that point.
Pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
Yanks: DO something about your electoral system! It's time to move back to Democracy from Corporate Oligarchy.
Re: (Score:2)
Person who refers to Americans(ie People from the United States of) as "Yanks" read about the U.S. constitution and the Federalist Papers we were never a democracy, instead a Federal Republic.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yanks: DO something about your electoral system! It's time to move back to Democracy from Corporate Oligarchy.
As someone outside of the situation, what would suggest? Seriously, because we seem to have no flippin' idea. None at all. Our elections have become fixed. Our politicians are totally corrupt. They've taken away all our rights and taxed us to death.
The last time this happened, we dumped a bunch of tea in Boston Harbor and told King George to go get fscked. Then we started shooting British soldiers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
These people need to get real (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:These people need to get real YEAH, MAYBE! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, for now.
The NET Act Made it Criminal (sometimes) (Score:4, Interesting)
Mind you, IANAL, and the DoJ apparently has better things to do than go after low-level copyright infringers, it seems like congress wants to change that to help Hollywood.
As for the DoJ, it sounds like they're against this primarily because they don't want to lose power. I never thought I'd be glad to see petty politics come into play, but I'm honestly glad and I agree with them that a copyright czar is a waste of time.
But the DoJ is also sensible enough only to care about huge pirate rings selling bootleg copies, not Joe Infringer downloading at home. Hollywood hates that, obviously, but the DoJ has real work to do and I hope they keep doing it.
Or do the politicians think that we won't blame them if the conviction rates for real crimes like homicide drop so that they can divert the DoJ's manpower to catch people who infringe upon copyrights at home? I'll sure as hell blame them if that happens.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm also in favor of hiding politicians in boxes and forcing people to vote for them without knowing what they look like or sound like or what their name i
Re:The NET Act Made it Criminal (sometimes) (Score:4, Insightful)
One in office
One in jail.
No exceptions.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here's what it consisted of: (I have put the relevant bits in bold)
Check and balances (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't a bill written to make the constituents happy... I'm glad the DOJ is doing more than following along.
With the way this country is going... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What a waste (Score:2)
Thanks (Score:2, Funny)
?????
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHHHA
BAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Oh my god it hurts...
BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
Re: (Score:2)
Translation... (Score:4, Funny)
Who's Word is Copyright Czar? (Score:5, Funny)
Who chose the wording "Copyright Czar"? That's akin to asking members of Congress to vote on killing puppies. No, they won't kill the puppies and they won't support a "Czar" of any kind.
Captain Copyright, on the other hand, wearing a cape, a smile, and a costume that says "Don't steal MY music" would go over much better.
Re: (Score:2)
Like the Drug Czar or Defense Czar...? I don't support them but they exist.
Re:Who's Word is Copyright Czar? (Score:5, Informative)
A "Captain Copyright [wikipedia.org]" character was indeed used for awhile in Canada to promote "rights of artists." Not surprisingly, the character and comics supporting a "copyright maximalist" slant, making no mention of fair dealing (Canadian version of fair use). Furthermore, there were a few incidents where it was shown that the Captain Copyright website was, in fact, infringing copyright.
Because of all the negative press, the character was withdrawn and the site [captaincopyright.ca] shut down. So it looks like a cape-wearing copyright crusader is not long-lived. And luckily IP law will prevent anyone else from resurrecting that particular idea.
Parent
Seperate offenses for what? (Score:2)
I realize that very few artists own the rights to their own music--the artists that this bill would affect, anyway-- but where does it end? If someone pirates a movie that has product placement in it? Nike, Coca-cola, etc...can they sue, since the pirate didn't get their permission/comission?
Heh (Score:5, Insightful)
Each blow in assault is not a seperate offence (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone is assaulted they cannot prosecute the assailant for each punch/stab/whatever....
They are entitled to fair protections but the system must make the redress fair as well. Each $2.99 song is a million dollars by their accounting. Now they want each instance to give them a retrial and more ability to punish the poor with larger threatened lawsuits. This is not trial by judge or jury anymore. They are fighting for trial by the inefficiency of our judicial system. They want to make the court system worse and more expensive while they use it as a hammer to win settlements - out of court. And who picks up the tab??? The country.
Go back to the initial copyright as set out by the constitution. Remove the extensions and emphasize the benefits of a global distribution system that costs peanuts to maintain.
when reality changes (Score:4, Insightful)
or you can adapt gracefully, and keep right on swimming
adapt, or die
i mean these are some pretty fantastic death throes we are witnessing now
riaa, mpaa: in 5 years i want to see shocktroopers on the street with congressionally mandated shoot to kill on sight orders for anyone caught singing christmas carols without prior authorization
that's the logical progression of your denial
The problem-nobody is waking up like they used to (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead of curbing drinking, it criminalized everyone and resulted in the proliferation of outright poisonous liquor (things like formaldehyde in it), rampant organized crime, and rampant corruption.
The interesting thing was.. the christian right ADMITTED THIS and congress repealed it.
Now let's look at the nixon drug laws, which at the time were ostensibly designed to criminalize the protestors he hated. Drugs are still widely proliferated, but instead of being highly regulated, safer (granted they ARE kinda bad for you, but so is booze and tobacco), and taxed. Further, people would feel safer seeking treatment knowing they wouldn't be arrested.
Instead of admitting their failure, the federal government continues to spend billions in a vietnam on our very shores and against our own people.
Now theyre pulling the same damn thing with the DMCA.. the sad part is they continue to do this DESPITE the fact even record execs have outright admitted, at least between the RIAA's spin cycles, that p2p isn't going away, and the DMCA isn't helping.
Parent
Re:Nicely put (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't Law, It's Business... (Score:4, Interesting)
1. We have a new set of laws that proscribes MASSIVE penalties for intellectual property violations. People need to defend themselves from this new threat!
2. We have tens of thousands of bored lawyers in this country, not to mention the ones graduating from college. They need money and swanky cars because they are Lawyers!
3. We have an industry that wants to make money off of music. All music. Everywhere. They need people to go after these infringers!
So, if these laws go into effect, we have two sets of lawyers, the Defenders and the Aggressors. The Defenders are primarily concerned with making money defending copyright infringer. If your max fine for violating copyright is around, say $50,000, wouldn't you rather spend $10,000 on a lawyer who guaranteed he would win, or your money back? Or if you are a business, wouldn't you shell out $150,000 for a lawyer to avoid the publicity and likely 1 Million in damages?
Aggressors would be the ones who actively go after the infringers, and would basically be mercenaries under the employ of the MPAA or RIAA. Investigations would net infringers, which would be passed on to the Aggressors. Considering their take-home on a trial would be a portion of the damages awarded, they would file as many cases as possible. If a few get settled, so be it, but may would go through and they would collect.
And here's the kicker, both Defenders and Aggressors have to serve the best interests of their client, which means settlement, and a lot of it. If a Defender manages to settle for $20k, he's just saved his client $30K. If an Aggressor settles for $20K, his client gets $20K free and clear on the ILLEGAL USE OF A SINGLE INFRINGEMENT without the hassle of a trial. Less attorney fees of course. If these guys file 30 cases like this a year, they are pulling back enough money to live on easily. If they build a firm around it, they have enough money to become tin gods.
When are we going to learn that in the nation of Capitalism, nothing is a law, it's just another business opportunity? Once, a long time ago, lawyers were defenders of freedom and justice, providing a check against government corruption and abuses of power. While some still are, the majority are so in bed with the government they have batter on hand for pancakes in the morning.
~Sticky
/First, the lawyers.
//Then, the politicians..
///When the revolution comes...
write your congressperson (Score:3, Interesting)
She never writes back or calls, so I can only gather that I have no representation in congress.
I'm informed about copyright issues. I wish my congressperson was.
Re: (Score:2)