"Attempted infringment" appears in new House intellectual property bill

ars technica ^ | 30 July 2007 | Nate Anderson

[mysterio]

A real government would break up the RIAA monopoly. Unfortunately, we have a government that has been bought and sold.

[Tribune7]

Unfortunately, we have a government that has been bought and sold.

Ditto that.

[OKIEDOC]

Thanks for the enlightenment.

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.

[OKIEDOC]

Are you talking about all of South America are specifically about someone like Hugo Chavez or maybe a president from Mexico?

[expat_panama]

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.

[expat_panama]

People/companies were still brazenly stealing other peoples ideas...

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.

[antiRepublicrat]

Intellectual Property means It is somebody’s Property and you use it on their terms.

"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.

[OKIEDOC]

Well said and I agree.

[anymouse]

Another thread on this topic with more implications of this bad legislation

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1874550/posts?page=1

[FYREDEUS]

“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?

[FYREDEUS]

*applauds*

[unixfox]

Just keep stepping over the line you friggin tyrants. Your days are numbered.

It's way past time to put these people back where they belong.

[MarkL]

"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."

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...