Posted on 07/30/2007 10:46:39 AM PDT by ShadowAce
Back in May, the Justice Department issued some proposed legislation to tighten US intellectual property laws and to criminalize some forms of "attempted infringement." Now, legislation based on the proposals has been introduced in Congress by Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH), complete with stiffer jail terms for violaters and the controversial "attempted infringement" clause.
H.R. 3155, the Intellectual Property Enhanced Criminal Enforcement Act of 2007, aims widely. Everything gets a section: unauthorized recording of films in theaters, circumventing copy protection, trafficking in counterfeit goods. The bill even directs the Attorney General to send federal prosecutors to take up permanent residence in Hong Kong and Budapest and specifies the number and makeup of FBI investigative teams.
In most cases, the bill appears to simply double existing penalties. Section 12 alone, for instance, makes a 10 year prison term in a 20 year term, three years into six, five into 10, and six into 12. Poof! More prison time!
One of the bill's controversial features is the fact that people can be charged with criminal copyright infringement even if such infringement has not actually taken place. "Any person who attempts to commit an offense under paragraph (1) shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt," says the bill.
While copyright infringement is sometimes believed to be solely a civil matter, that's not the case. US Code 17, section 506 (a) spells out the conditions for criminal infringement under which the government can actually do the prosecuting, and they are quite modest. The infringement must be willful and the material in question must have a total retail value of over $1,000. This wouldn't be a difficult threshold for many P2P users to clear, except for the fact that this section also requires that the infringement be done "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain."
The attempted infringement clause actually falls under this criminal infringement statute, meaning that it won't apply to file-sharing unless the courts suddenly take a hugely expansive view of "commercial advantage or private financial gain," and it's unlikely the government has some new interest in such cases.
The bill is full of the sort of things that groups like the EFF aren't going to like, and in fact the EFF has already issued a statement condemning the legislation. One of their concerns is that a small change to the law could have big effects on casual file-sharers for a different reason: P2P users could face greater penalties for infringement after statutory damages are expanded.
The bill allows "a judge to dole out damages for each separate piece of a derivative work or compilation, rather than treating it as one work," wrote Derek Slater, "for example, copying an entire album could translate into damages for each individual track, even if the copyrights in those tracks aren't separately registered."
A real government would break up the RIAA monopoly. Unfortunately, we have a government that has been bought and sold.
Ditto that.
I had a sound reasoning for intellectual property but was thinking along different lines of maybe the law going to far.
However, I can and do have empathy for your situation.
Thanks again.
Amazing. We keep hearing how it’s impossible to arrest drug peddlers or track down foreigners who’re in the US illegally, but some how they can find enforcement resources for 12-year olds saving a pop tune on a hard drive.
Our tax dollars at work.
You're leaving out the other part-- the constitution restriction on federal power that the RIAA is evading. Titles to "ideas" are to be for a limited time. By allowing the industry to be free from these limits, they're enabled to steal from the public what is rightfully public property.
I'll argue that theft is wrong even when it's by right's holders who work to keep their rights without limit. Industry reps will argue that limits are already set by law, but then they proceed to extend/modify/annul these limits whenever it suits them.
The constitution is already law and Chatot's bill should not be passed.
"Intellectual Property" is a made-up term that creates confusion (as in this case), muddying the issue and eliminating the necessary distinctions between the actual concepts covered by the term.
You do not completely use it on their terms. Copyright, Patent and Trademark are balances between the limited granted (not natural) rights of the creator and the public. You can only equate them to regular property if you also consider that the law establishes an easement for the entire population.
Out of all the patents filed
An example of the problem: this is about copyright, not patent. They are covered by very different laws.
I believe the changes in the law are recommended because the old laws were not working People/companies were still brazenly stealing other peoples ideas. Faced with jail time people might think twice. IMHO
That's not how copyright was supposed to work. It was supposed to be a civil case between you and the person who infringed on your rights (remember, there is no "theft," only infringement). Criminal penalties are a recent invention. The consequences of such infringement are already quite high, $150,000 per case, enough to ruin most anybody.
Well said and I agree.
Another thread on this topic with more implications of this bad legislation
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1874550/posts?page=1
“You are not going to get great literature, music, new inventions etc. without the promise of a capitalist payoff.”
Riiiiiiiiiiight...and NOBODY wrote any literature, made any music, or invented anything BEFORE Capitalism...are you really that stupid?
*applauds*
It's way past time to put these people back where they belong.
And for judges who really like to get in there and get active (or at least those who are totally in the pocket of the RIAA) they'll be able to translate damages for each individual note in the song...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.