Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government Media Music United States News Your Rights Online Politics

DOJ Doesn't Like the Idea of A Copyright Czar 215

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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DOJ Doesn't Like the Idea of A Copyright Czar

Comments Filter:
  • by Mesa MIke ( 1193721 ) on Friday December 14, 2007 @04:10PM (#21701512) Homepage
    > ... would allow a copyright owner to collect statutory > damages for each copyrighted work that is stolen. So if I buy a Metallica CD, and someone swipes it, Metallica gets the money when the thief is caught? Bizarre.
  • All Pau... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by quickpick ( 1021471 ) on Friday December 14, 2007 @04:12PM (#21701548)
    I gotta be honest, I was at best buy and I didn't see any particular movie or CD that interested me and I had a $5 off coupon to spend. Movie, music, and TV executives take note: I'm done. You can keep your ball and play by your rules, but I'm going to go home and do something constructive, like build a book shelf, or read a book, and maybe stop, look up at this beautiful world we live in and decide I don't need your crap to enjoy life.
  • It this passes... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tgatliff ( 311583 ) on Friday December 14, 2007 @04:12PM (#21701554)
    It will be a huge turn for the federal government in US history. Meaning, this is a blantant example of politicians wanting to use the federal government resources to help primarily large businesses maximize and enforce their revenues. Piracy, like it or not, provides a market balance where in many industries it did not exist before, and most of the politicians know this.
  • by Applekid ( 993327 ) on Friday December 14, 2007 @04:13PM (#21701562)

    The IP division works closely with the DOJ's cyber crime laboratory, so separating a copyright unit could fracture investigation
    More likely, then, is that those currently enpowered for enforcement don't want their power diluted. Makes perfect sense.
  • Bottom Line (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Stanistani ( 808333 ) on Friday December 14, 2007 @04:14PM (#21701578) Homepage Journal
    Abuse of the court system to slam 'Intellectual Property' offenders benefits corporations.

    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)

    by subl33t ( 739983 ) on Friday December 14, 2007 @04:15PM (#21701586)
    The American drug Czars have done soooo well haven't they? A copyright Czar is SURE to end all copyright violations!

    Yanks: DO something about your electoral system! It's time to move back to Democracy from Corporate Oligarchy.
  • by Finallyjoined!!! ( 1158431 ) on Friday December 14, 2007 @04:15PM (#21701594)
    Copyright infringement is a civil offence. Nuff said.
  • Check and balances (Score:4, Insightful)

    by techpawn ( 969834 ) on Friday December 14, 2007 @04:17PM (#21701622) Journal
    We already have laws that punish real bootlegging pirates. Walk down the street in most major metropolitan areas and you see people making money off other peoples hard work. Would those people be charged with both the original crime AND a crime for EACH of the copyrights they violated to sell a five dollar version of a 20 dollar RIAA CD?

    This isn't a bill written to make the constituents happy... I'm glad the DOJ is doing more than following along.
  • by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Friday December 14, 2007 @04:19PM (#21701654)

    Copyright infringement is a civil offence. Nuff said.

    Yeah, for now.

  • Re:All Pau... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ShieldW0lf ( 601553 ) on Friday December 14, 2007 @04:25PM (#21701752) Journal
    Wasn't this sort of unfair taxation by the British the sort of thing that prompted bloody revolution in the US a few hundred years ago?

    What makes you think things are going to go differently this time?
  • by Conspiracy_Of_Doves ( 236787 ) on Friday December 14, 2007 @04:27PM (#21701784)
    No, of course not.

    The RIAA gets the money. Metallica doesn't see a penny.
  • Re:All Pau... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 14, 2007 @04:28PM (#21701810)
    A few hundred years ago life was hard. Now, life is fat. That is why things will go differently this time.
  • Heh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cleon ( 471197 ) <cleon42 AT yahoo DOT com> on Friday December 14, 2007 @04:29PM (#21701814) Homepage
    If the "We Don't Torture, but Oppose Anti-Torture Legislation" DOJ thinks a piece of legislation is a little too heavy-handed, Congress should damn well get the message that it's time to reconsider.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 14, 2007 @04:37PM (#21701950)
    How is it that copyright receives a higher standard of punishment than traditional crime. Maybe because the RIAA holds itself more important than people who really get hurt.

    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.
  • Re:crybaby (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SanityInAnarchy ( 655584 ) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Friday December 14, 2007 @04:38PM (#21701958) Journal
    Of course, because ripping a DVD and putting it on your video iPod is stealing.

    It's not about stealing, dipshit. It's about choice.
  • by Telvin_3d ( 855514 ) on Friday December 14, 2007 @04:39PM (#21701976)
    Actually, I doubt that many of the politicians DO know that. How many congressmen or senators do you think have time (not ot mention inclination) to lurk on Boing Boing or slashdot? How many have ever swung by PirateBay to grab something not available at their local box store? haw many watch John Stewart four times a week?

    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.
  • by sexconker ( 1179573 ) on Friday December 14, 2007 @04:43PM (#21702032)
    Surely you mean, "you as the "licensee" of the music".
  • Re:All Pau... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by iknownuttin ( 1099999 ) on Friday December 14, 2007 @04:50PM (#21702120)
    I was at best buy and I didn't see any particular movie or CD that interested me and I had a $5 off coupon to spend.

    I don't shop at best buy (or anywhere else that demands to see my receipt: ComUSA, Costco, Mars Music, etc.. I don't care what their reasons are.) but I can only imagine that they stock their shelves for the mainstream stuff.

    Personally, I've given up on pop music. I've developed a fondness for the classics: Mozart, Bach, those guys: Not the Stones or Beatles. Granted, I still enjoy a good tune on the radio, but actually acquire a pop CD? I haven't done that in over ten years. The classics are less than $10 as long as you buy the generic recording by some philharmonic somewhere. Now, if you see a good looking person on the cover with a name, then you'll pay the $18 for the damn thing - same composer, just a pretty person playing it. Even a Yo Yo Ma CD is more than the Joe Schmoe CD. You know what, I don't care if it's a celebrity musician or not - I can't tell the difference. And considering all of the talented folks in the World, I don't see the point of paying $10 more for a CD because its played by a celebrity.

  • you can dig in your heels and fight it tooth and nail, until reality passes you by

    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
  • by R2.0 ( 532027 ) on Friday December 14, 2007 @05:31PM (#21702616)
    "Back in the 20's the christian right got the volstead act."

    Applying the term "christian right" to a political movement before the 70's is like calling something a "genocide" that happened before WWII - it uses a term that didn't exist at the time of the event, not to describe it, but to leverage current emotional and intellectual trends to get the reaction the writer wishes.

    In other words, trolling.
  • by jamstar7 ( 694492 ) on Friday December 14, 2007 @05:57PM (#21702962)
    Better yet, two terms.

    One in office
    One in jail.
    No exceptions.

  • by Darby ( 84953 ) on Friday December 14, 2007 @06:28PM (#21703332)
    Congratulations!
    You were modded troll for the crime of actually knowing a definition.
    That's pretty funny ;-)

  • Re:All Pau... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Brad Eleven ( 165911 ) <brad.eleven@gmail.com> on Friday December 14, 2007 @06:47PM (#21703544) Homepage Journal
    As much as I'd like to find a way to agree with you--I dislike the RIAA and their ilk--the answer is no.

    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.
  • by Nazlfrag ( 1035012 ) on Friday December 14, 2007 @08:02PM (#21704200) Journal
    A free man makes his own choices. The effects of prohibition are organized crime and massive profits for the black marketeers who care nothing for their victims. We already have a system in place to distribute drugs just as potent, and often more potent than meth, crack and opiates. It's called prescription medication, and those drugs share the same problems of addiction and loss of freedom. Yet instead of receiving your drugs from a gangbanger and funding organized crime you are visiting a doctor who can help inform you about your situation, and get you in touch with counseling and rehabilitation services.

    The choice is simple, continue fighting a war against your own citizens or simply allow the people who already deal with powerful drugs the ability to control the situation. There is only one sane option, unfortunately we are far from arriving at it.

Work continues in this area. -- DEC's SPR-Answering-Automaton

Working...