Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Legislative fun: the "PIRATE" act
Here is a press
release from Senator Patrick Leahy on his sponsorship of the
"protecting intellectual property rights against theft and expropriation"
act in the Senate. This law would allow the federal government to get into
the business of filing copyright infringement suits and set up a fund to
pay for them. "Under current law, the Attorney General can only
bring criminal copyright cases, which can be difficult to prosecute
because, among other factors, they require a high standard of proof. The
Leahy-Hatch bill would allow the Attorney General to file civil claims that
could include damages and restitution without criminal penalties."
Once upon a time, requiring a high standard of proof was considered to be a
good thing.
(Log in to post comments)
Legislative fun: the "PIRATE" act Posted Mar 29, 2004 15:26 UTC (Mon) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link] Apologies, but it seems too tempting to pass it up ... it has been made entertainingly clearlast year that a high standard of proof is pretty unnecessary when it is in the way of something We Really Want (tm). Even to begin a war, that is. For else, one might actually have to do the necessary
Legislative fun: the "PIRATE" act Posted Mar 29, 2004 15:54 UTC (Mon) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link] "Excuse me, my English not very bad", but.......shouldn't it be the PIPRATE act? hnrik
Legislative fun: the "PIRATE" act Posted Mar 29, 2004 15:56 UTC (Mon) by allesfresser (guest, #216) [Link] One more small technicality to be brushed aside...
Legislative fun: the "PIRATE" act Posted Mar 29, 2004 19:10 UTC (Mon) by zutman (guest, #5077) [Link] 'intellectual property' is not two words, but one word, these days.(oh tempora, oh mores)
Income Source Posted Mar 29, 2004 15:57 UTC (Mon) by ccyoung (guest, #16340) [Link] I think this is heading toward the same direction as the "drug wars" - police who find drugs can confiscate and sell property - a major source of income for law enforcement. So now maybe police departments can keep the $$ like the entertainment cops now - the artists don't get proceds from them, why should they get it from the cops. And it is as it should be - after all, college kids sharing tunes and old farts smoking dope are the two largest national security threats this country faces.
Legislative fun: the "PIRATE" act Posted Mar 29, 2004 17:46 UTC (Mon) by ujay (guest, #20472) [Link] It appears to me that the primary aim of this piece of 'legislation' is designed to take the cost of prosecuting out of the hand of the MPAA/RIAA, and place it into the hands of the court system/DOJ. Which will actually place the costs into the pockets of the taxpayers.With cost of court/lawyer fees, the MPAA/RIAA are spending more than they are getting in settlement from the children they are legally abusing. Now they can coerce the gov't to take the loss while padding their own accounts.
Legislative fun: the "PIRATE" act Posted Mar 29, 2004 18:17 UTC (Mon) by ka1axy (guest, #12439) [Link] So, could this be used against SCO's claim of ownersip interest in Linux?
Legislative fun: the "PIRATE" act Posted Mar 29, 2004 20:25 UTC (Mon) by edvac (guest, #13074) [Link] Something about the money trail.....Hatch and Leahy have together received $330360 from the recording and entertainment industries in 2004; according to this http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,62830,00.html and here http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?CID=N00009869&cycle=2004 and here http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?CID=N00009918&cycle=2004 Many of the real crooks are low people in high places in government IMHO.
Legislative fun: the "PIRATE" act Posted Mar 29, 2004 20:43 UTC (Mon) by ronaldcole (guest, #1462) [Link] I still claim it would be more profitable for Ashcroft to set up the bureaucracy necessary to "condemn" blighted IP (since it *is* PROPERTY after all :P ) and sell it to the highest bidder.<AotC> MAS AMEDDA: If only Senator Amidala were here.
Legislative fun: the "PIRATE" act Posted Mar 29, 2004 21:45 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] hmmm,... SCO couldn't get it in time for this law... but does this mean that in the future someone or something like SCO could steal from Open Source repositorys, and them civil suit their victims... and get away with it ??I mean,... what could stop a Scoundrel from do it like above, if this "Act" almost invites the scoundrel to do that ??... Copyright is for those that could afford litigation !... not for a single Open Source developer!??... is that it!??...
Legislative fun: the "PIRATE" act Posted Mar 29, 2004 21:52 UTC (Mon) by freethinker (guest, #4397) [Link] Also once upon a time, legislators could come up with a bill without twisting the name around to make a cute acronym. Apparently they now consider themselves a subsidiary of the entertainment industry, in more ways than one.
One more step... Posted Mar 29, 2004 22:10 UTC (Mon) by jae (guest, #2369) [Link] on the road to "IP"==property.Let's face it: Sonny Bono himself (IIRC) thought that copyright should be forever, ergo, behave like real ownership in real, physical property. (But they were too cowardly, and they knew that *"forever"* would be *obviously* unconstitutional) Now this law gets us one step closer, because it allows the state(s) (is it federal-only?) to treat "IP" just as physical property. Or, at least a bit more so.
Joke? Posted Mar 30, 2004 4:50 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] So, this thing is a joke, right?
Legislative fun: the "PIRATE" act Posted Mar 30, 2004 9:06 UTC (Tue) by beejaybee (guest, #1581) [Link] 'Scuse me but don't I have "intellectual property rights" if I buy music on a CD - or pay to download it over the 'Net from a legal site?Aren't the manufacturers, distributors and retailers then "stealing" my rights if they supply damaged goods which I can't play on whichever system I choose to? Like most legislation, this thing could cut two ways. Mind you, whichever way it's cutting, it's still WRONG to lower standards of proof.
Legislative fun: the "PIRATE" act Posted Apr 1, 2004 15:32 UTC (Thu) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link] No you don't.You see, legally there *is* no such thing as "intellectual property", the term does not exist in any law. There *is* such a thing as copyrigth. And patent. And trademark. But the three follow three very different set of laws, and none of the set of laws is at all similar to the set of laws governing the concept we commonly refer to as "property". If you buy a CD, you own it. It's your property. If I take it from you without permission, it is theft. If you play it from your balcony, and I record the sound on my tape-recorder it is just stupidity to assert that "theft" has occured. The only people who use the term "intellectual proerty" are people who either doesn't know better, *OR* people who _do_ know better, but intend to mislead the person they're talking to into not knowing better.
|
|
||||||||||||