New Bill To Boost Penalties For Copyright Infringement

[Dave_Z]

At least that's what I gather from one of my feeds I just read:

http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9719339-7.html

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is pressing the U.S. Congress to enact a sweeping intellectual-property bill that would increase criminal penalties for copyright infringement, including "attempts" to commit piracy.

"To meet the global challenges of IP crime, our criminal laws must be kept updated," Gonzales said during a speech before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington on Monday.

The Bush administration is throwing its support behind a proposal called the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007, which is likely to receive the enthusiastic support of the movie and music industries, and would represent the most dramatic rewrite of copyright law since a 2005 measure dealing with prerelease piracy.

The "legislative proposal" in question:

http://politechbot.com/docs/doj.intellectual.property.protection.act.2007.051407.pdf

Start reading...and start talking to your congressman/woman if you think it's a
cause for concern.

 

[Ronald Regging]

Doesn't sound too exciting to be honest. Most of it does sound like they are just trying to get the copyright laws standardized with the TM and DMCA laws. The part about making it illegal to intend or attempt to commit copyright infringement is the bit that scares me. Mostly because it's also attached with a request to allow wiretaps. How could you know that someone was intending to commit copyright infringement? The crime doesn't exist until it happens. And no one will know about it until it happens. So how exactly to they intend to find people who are intending or attempting to commit copyright infringement? Just sounds a bit fishy to me.

 

[-REECE-]

It's this kind of $hit that makes me glad I don't live in the USA... Jesus, everything Congress does these days is to make the rich, richer...

 

[labrocca]

I am all for this. There is too often intellectual property that's stepped on and when you contact a person they blow you off. The DMCA is in the right direction where a person gets notified...if they don't respond favorably to you then the book should be thrown at them.

 

[-REECE-]

I am all for this. There is too often intellectual property that's stepped on and when you contact a person they blow you off. The DMCA is in the right direction where a person gets notified...if they don't respond favorably to you then the book should be thrown at them.

Did you see the part about wiretapping? That's a bit scary... Something better used preventing Osama #2 rather than the 12 year old illegally sharing music IMO.

 

[markmiddleton]

Did you see the part about wiretapping? That's a bit scary... Something better used preventing Osama #2 rather than the 12 year old illegally sharing music IMO.

I rather often think about the millions or rather billions of dollars they must waste chasing/spying and then prosecuting people, who are never going to be able to pay you back the money they sue them for in the end anyway. Some organizations really have no financial sense.

In legal terms I believe its called getting blood from a stone...

'that those who attempt to commit a crime but do not complete it'

In this kind of untested medium or rather legal ground, this kind of subjective pre-emptive enforcement is quite scary but more likely will just waste everyones time and money with a couple of long and ultimately fruitless court cases.

'actions that were "intended to consist of" distribution'

I'd really like to see that one argued over in court, its so full of holes its untrue.

How do you prove someone's intent to distribute exactly, read their mind? Sarcasm aside, for the average person engaged in p2p, torrents etc this means nothing, despite what it might be hyped as. If its intended to bring down large scale distributors before they put out a release then thats one thing, if its intended to scare the average teenager on a p2p network I think it will fall far short.

 

[-REECE-]

Has thoughtcrime been enacted yet? Surely it must be next...

Thoughts may lead to ideas, ideas to conspiracy, and conspiracy to actual crimes being committed.

 

[.X.]

I kinda feel like they have to have to make the TM laws clearer first, there has been much confusion on TR infringment and domain names this last year, broading and making stiffer laws is a good thing, but atleast clear the clouds of when a person is exactly infringing, i don't mean like someone intentionally regging a TM name to get self gain, the standards are not exactly clear, John Berryhill would be a great lawyer to post in this thread.

 

[Ronald Regging]

How do you prove someone's intent to distribute exactly, read their mind? Sarcasm aside, for the average person engaged in p2p, torrents etc this means nothing, despite what it might be hyped as. If its intended to bring down large scale distributors before they put out a release then thats one thing, if its intended to scare the average teenager on a p2p network I think it will fall far short.

Well, perhaps it'll be much like intent to distribute is handled for drugs. They can't prove any real intent, so they base it purely on the quantity, whether there was any real intent to distribute or not. So exactly how many songs can we download illegally before its considered intent to distribute?

 

[bluesman]

Recorded wire-tap of Bluesman to William Mayfield conversation: February 22, 2008:


Bluesman: Hi, Bill? This is Blues the domain guy!

Bill: Huh? Oh, right. You're using a phone instead of emailing me like usual?

Bluesman: Because my phone's wire-tapped thanks to a new law, and I wanted to try it out to see if it works. I'm gonna be getting into lots and lots of internet skull-duggery!

Bill: Uh, are you sure you should be telling me this kind of thing?

Bluesman: Yep, intellectual property violations, copyright infringement, the whole ball o' wax - that's MY game!

Bill: Geez, keep it down, will ya?

Bluesman: Nah - I WANT them to hear it - then when I get busted, I'll know it's a fine example of my government at work!

Bill: Okay, I get it now . Hey, you are one solid citizen, there, Blues. That's way more than I'D ever do for my country.

Bluesman: TELL me about it! Anyway, getting back to my planned online heists, I've also got this really SWEET trademark ripoff in the works...

 

[labrocca]

Did you see the part about wiretapping? That's a bit scary... Something better used preventing Osama #2 rather than the 12 year old illegally sharing music IMO.

It doesn't bother me. Just because something is in the books doesn't mean it's enforced or used. I bet it's rare cases they bother to wiretap. Mostly meant for bootleg rings that copy thousands of movies and such. Do you really think they will spend the resources to wiretap domainers with parked names? Heck...it's the type of business no one uses the phone.

 

[Ronald Regging]

It doesn't bother me. Just because something is in the books doesn't mean it's enforced or used. I bet it's rare cases they bother to wiretap. Mostly meant for bootleg rings that copy thousands of movies and such. Do you really think they will spend the resources to wiretap domainers with parked names? Heck...it's the type of business no one uses the phone.

Wiretap doesn't only refer to phones. They can intercept other types of communication as well. And it's not really a matter that they'll use this to to bust domainers, its a matter that they could wiretap pretty much anyone and then append this as the reason later on to justify it. All they need to find is anything on your computer that could remotely represent copyright or TM infringment or an attempt to, and they can justify any otherwise illegal search and seizure.

 

[-REECE-]

Wiretap doesn't only refer to phones. They can intercept other types of communication as well. And it's not really a matter that they'll use this to to bust domainers, its a matter that they could wiretap pretty much anyone and then append this as the reason later on to justify it. All they need to find is anything on your computer that could remotely represent copyright or TM infringment or an attempt to, and they can justify any otherwise illegal search and seizure.

Yes, that's precisely what I'd be worried about. Having a typo'd domain and later getting apprehended for running an illegal gambling ring i.e.

Now how many people don't take part in illegal gambling once in awhile