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.'"
Re:All Pau... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Pointless (Score:1, Interesting)
It has been time for a long time. The reason few Americans are interested seems to be a combination of ignorance and apathy (generally rooted in sloth or cynicism).
I have met many people who are completely ignorant of the state-of-affairs in the war for digital freedom. They do not know that the *AA are blanketing the country with lawsuits, that the *AA think it is illegal for you to rip your CD to your Ipod, or that laws like the DMCA are depriving them of longstanding rights they used to have over their own hardware. They, therefore, have little incentive to get up and do something.
Most of the ones who DO know, feel that lawmaking is for lawmakers....let the politicians work all that out...it's what they are paid for (sloth). Others believe that there is no point in taking action, because the corporate interests already own the government and as such their individual efforts will be harmful to themselves and ultimately futile (cynicism).
So, your command to get up and do something is largely falling on disinterested ears.
If you actually want to see some action, you may have to think more creatively. Posting on slashdot ain't going to cut it.
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.
Re:Pointless (Score:2, Interesting)
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:The NET Act Made it Criminal (sometimes) (Score:2, Interesting)
Politician as a career should be banned.
Politics as a degree course should be banned.
Can everyone see the obscenity that is a "career politician". Originally politicians were people who had had experience, with life, work, industry etc. etc. & who came to politics later in life. Now you get spotty gits deciding, at age 3, to become a politician (because you get your picture in the paper lots & get lots of money) and it beats working.
Terry Pratchett, in his four ecks book - can't remember the title - has politicians placed in jail immediately on election. Now, Slashdot, THAT'S "INSIGHTFUL". Sorry for shouting
Re:The NET Act Made it Criminal (sometimes) (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 is. The ability to look and sound good seem to often be in opposition to the ability to think.
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...
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.
Re:It this passes... (Score:3, Interesting)
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 from EMR +5 back on.
Re:Pointless (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:All Pau... (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 is incredible. I can't imagine someone who likes rock, no matter what style, not finding *some* song they like. Hard Rock? Acid Rock? Pop? Bubblegum? Folk? Avante Garde? Orchestral? Epic? Soul? Blues? Psychedelic? Art? Progressive? Hell, even (pseudo)-Religious? They did it all.
I know it's not news that Beatles were good (heh), but you don't really "get it" until you really listen to their stuff. And it still sounds fresh 40 years later. At this moment I'm actually listening to "Hey Bulldog [youtube.com]", one of their obscure, throwaway songs (they actually knocked it out in one day for a video promo they had to do -- the video I linked to is actually footage of them creating the song, it's pretty cool), and it's a great song. The base line is incredibly rocking. Their throwaways are better than anything written these days.
The Stones are a great band, if only for sheer volume of work and longevity, but nothing they did approached the Beatles at their best.
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:Nicely put (Score:3, Interesting)