Legislative fun: the "PIRATE" act
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.
Posted Mar 29, 2004 15:26 UTC (Mon)
by vblum (guest, #1151)
[Link]
Even to begin a war, that is. For else, one might actually have to do the necessary
Posted Mar 29, 2004 15:54 UTC (Mon)
by hingo (guest, #14792)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Mar 29, 2004 15:56 UTC (Mon)
by allesfresser (guest, #216)
[Link]
Posted Mar 29, 2004 19:10 UTC (Mon)
by zutman (guest, #5077)
[Link]
Posted Mar 29, 2004 15:57 UTC (Mon)
by ccyoung (guest, #16340)
[Link]
Posted Mar 29, 2004 17:46 UTC (Mon)
by ujay (guest, #20472)
[Link]
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.
Posted Mar 29, 2004 18:17 UTC (Mon)
by ka1axy (guest, #12439)
[Link]
Posted Mar 29, 2004 20:25 UTC (Mon)
by edvac (guest, #13074)
[Link]
Posted Mar 29, 2004 20:43 UTC (Mon)
by ronaldcole (guest, #1462)
[Link]
<AotC> MAS AMEDDA: If only Senator Amidala were here.
Posted Mar 29, 2004 21:45 UTC (Mon)
by mmarq (guest, #2332)
[Link]
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!??...
Posted Mar 29, 2004 21:52 UTC (Mon)
by freethinker (guest, #4397)
[Link]
Posted Mar 29, 2004 22:10 UTC (Mon)
by jae (guest, #2369)
[Link]
Posted Mar 30, 2004 4:50 UTC (Tue)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link]
Posted Mar 30, 2004 9:06 UTC (Tue)
by beejaybee (guest, #1581)
[Link] (1 responses)
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.
Posted Apr 1, 2004 15:32 UTC (Thu)
by ekj (guest, #1524)
[Link]
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.
Apologies, but it seems too tempting to pass it up ... it has been made entertainingly clear Legislative fun: the "PIRATE" act
last year that a high standard of proof is pretty unnecessary when it is in the way of
something We Really Want (tm).
background work ...
"Excuse me, my English not very bad", but....
Legislative fun: the "PIRATE" act
...shouldn't it be the PIPRATE act?
hnrik
One more small technicality to be brushed aside...
Legislative fun: the "PIRATE" act
'intellectual property' is not two words, but one word, these days. Legislative fun: the "PIRATE" act
(oh tempora, oh mores)
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.
Income Source
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.Legislative fun: the "PIRATE" act
So, could this be used against SCO's claim of ownersip interest in Linux?Legislative fun: the "PIRATE" act
Something about the money trail.....Legislative fun: the "PIRATE" act
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.
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.Legislative fun: the "PIRATE" act
PALPATINE: But what Senator would have the courage to
propose such a radical amendment?
</AotC>
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 ??Legislative fun: the "PIRATE" act
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.Legislative fun: the "PIRATE" act
on the road to "IP"==property. One more step...
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.
So, this thing is a joke, right?
Joke?
'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?Legislative fun: the "PIRATE" act
No you don't.Legislative fun: the "PIRATE" act