Bush admin: RIAA win shows copyright law is 'effective'

The Bush administration said on Friday that the recording industry's $222,000 courtroom victory shows that the legal system is working against peer-to-peer pirates.

"Cases such as this remind us strong enforcement is a significant part of the effort to eliminate piracy, and that we have an effective legal system in the U.S. that enables rights holders to protect their intellectual property," said Chris Israel, the U.S. Coordinator for International Intellectual Property Enforcement, to CNET News.com.

Chris Israel, U.S. Coordinator for International Intellectual Property Enforcement, in a file photograph

President Bush named Israel, formerly a senior Commerce Department official, to the key copyright post in July 2005. He has an MBA from George Washington University and, before joining the Bush administration, worked for Time Warner's public policy arm.

Israel's comments come a day after the Recording Industry Association of America won a landmark jury verdict in a Minnesota federal court against a woman accused of sharing copyrighted songs on the Kazaa file-trading network.

The Bush administration has adopted a generally expansive view of copyright law, including writing trade deals that include anti-circumvention restrictions. In 2005, the president signed into law the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act, which slaps some file-sharers with additional penalties.

Israel also said: "Piracy impacts many of our most innovative industries, costs American jobs and is a huge threat to our economic competitiveness."

[DeathNACan]

Protection?

The best justice money can buy. The judge tells the jury that it was the RIAA did not have to prove she shared the music; how can one justify that amount of damages without proving a substantial financial loss? Secondly, not remember specific details about a hard drive replacement should not have been construed as proof of criminal intent. If a crime has been committed, why has there not been a prosecution? The burden of prove is much greater! I can tell you that I would not hesitate to destroy my hard drive were I made aware that any non-law enforcement entity were interested in it just to protect my own privacy. The contents of my hard drive are like Pandora's Box, once opened it can never be closed. Once an a file is opened and examined, no matter what the content was supposed to be, there is no privacy. So your personal journal, emails, intimate communications with your wife or girlfriend are no longer private. Protecting your privacy should not be construed as destruction of evidence. To destroy evidence, it should first be proven that such evidence exists.

[Static-X-Machina]

Nice one.

You, sir are my personal hero. This is the first comment that has made sense to me on this particular topic.

[madmax2008]

In Canada file sharing is legal

in 2004 a federal court judge in Canada ruled file sharing is legal, so why do some Americans always boast that they have more freedom than others? Okay, maybe more than Burma, but certainly not more freedom than your average Canadian or European does. Also some US ISPs are going to monitor internet usage to crack down on piracy, more snooping, less freedom.

[Jadefa]

Quit Demonizing Republicans, Chumps!

You IDIOTS! This law suit has nothing to do with whose in the Whitehouse, any administration would have had to comment on this verdict. You people take every issue bend it, twist it & fit it into your anti-republican propoganda machine. How is it that the Republicans end up the target of every opinion piece you zealots do?!! Get off the Media Matters dole and report what really matters in Tech. CNET is just another political e-rag. Republicans don't have **** to do with whether or not you can download Britney Spears and get away with it. PUNKS!!

[pch4101]

RE: Quit Demonizing Republicans, Chumps

When the Republicans controlled both Senate and the House they could have changed the copyright law so this wouldn't take place. And for the last 7 years they had a Republican President in the White House to help them. Having controlled both the Senate, House and the White House for so long can't they be held responsible for anything???

[jeremyblaze]

you are so right

Republicans do enough damage to themselves simply by their words and votes. <br /><br />Effective Legal System? Really? 1 person gets their a_s handed to them, and millions others continue to download at will? Yeah, thats effective. Fair and Balanced 2.0?

[nicmart]

Take it like a man

All that bluster and we still have the Bush administration defending <br />the award. Bush ain't no Ron Paul.

[otis3939]

Izzy? On the side of the RIAA?

I kicked this kid's butt in college and now I think I wanna do it all <br />over again.

[Jadefa]

wwwooooooooo!!

This guy could probably ruin your life with the stroke of a pen, and if what you say is true you may still have reason to worry. Let me guess, you still live at home with mom?

[bschmidt25]

Right...

And you think a democratic congress with a house speaker from California is going to do anything that the media companies are opposed to? Get real!

[gabeheim]

It's not Republican or Democrat...

It's the US Global Corporation Party. Bought and paid for by your friendly Global Corporations to sell you out to them. They've even bought judges, seats on the FCC, and your senator too. <br /><br />Seriously, until we fix the campaign bribery issues and other forms of lobbying, and give true grassroots movements power, we're just gonna get sold to: The Phone Company, The Cable Company, the Music Company, the Movie Company, The Insurance Company, The Seed Company (monsato: The world's most dangerous company), The Software Company, and any Other Big Company after that, looking to collect their rent from us.

[Madison Guy]

Consumers need to fight back

<a href="#"></a><br />RIAA downloading lawsuit: <a href="#"></a>I'm putting my money where my mouth is. Please join me.

[Madison Guy]

Consumers need to fight back

Sorry about that. Let's try again:<br /><br />RIAA downloading lawsuit as the straw that broke the camel's back: <a href="http://letterfromhere.blogspot.com/2007/10/lets-teach-heartless-greedy-bastards.html"> Let's teach the heartless, greedy bastards we're the customers and boycott Sony.</a> I'm putting my money where my mouth is. Please join me.

[Eryoe]

Wrong-&-Right

Bush is wrong:<br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.p2p-weblog.com/50226711/oops_sorry_wrong_person_riaa_shotgun_lawsuits.php" target="_newWindow">http://www.p2p-weblog.com/50226711/oops_sorry_wrong_person_riaa_shotgun_lawsuits.php</a><br /><br />One lawsuit success and Bush Admin gos crazy, notice though, on the above link, we saw nothing from the Bush Admin !. So I believe that when the law is wrong its right just to keep quiet, but if the law is right, its time to take the spotlight.

[kelargo]

"Effective" as the war on terror

as effective as the war in Iraq<br />as effective as the war in Afghanistan<br />as effective as the loss of Habeas Corpus<br />as effective as Torture<br />as effective as fish and humans coexisting peacefully.

[skeptik]

well... more effective than Clinton!

Not saying the war on terror is 100% successful, but it's been a far sight more effective than Clinton's attempt at going after Bin Laden, no? Did the terrorists not tell us during his administration that they WERE going to bring down the WTC and the first failed attempt was not going to be the end? I mean if Clinton had actually gone after the guy with any real effort 9-11 may never have happened and you wouldn't have any of these worries. <br />But Clinton had his mind on far more pressing matters like, oh, BJs in the Oval office while his wife was busy stealing the White House china and tablewear. <br />Besides, if Gore hadn't invented the internet there would be no P2P piracy. So I guess we can blame both of these messes on the Dems. <br />lol

[Scott Gardener]

One slight disagreement

I do have to disagree with one point; I think humans and fish can coexist peacefully. But, I'm a bit of a dreamer.

[KinetiK_SK8R]

Selective justice

What I find interesting is the eagerness of the courts, law enforcement, and the current administration to pursue these "law breakers," while allowing our country to be overrun by approximately 12 million or more real law breakers who are guilty of at least the following: entering the country illegally, driving without a license, driving without insurance, and using a false or illegally obtained Social Security number. I guess the problem is that enforcing immigration laws doesn't put any money into the pockets of a big corporation. While I am up on my soapbox I might as well get this off my chest. I am sick and tired of the sob-story that they are just here to make a better life for themselves and don't mean any harm. Let's take this down to a personal level. If you came home one afternoon and found a complete stranger in your house, eating your food and watching your TV, would it be ok as long as they told you they were just looking for a place to live and didn't have any bad intentions? Our immigration laws are intended to allow immigration while regulating the flow of immigrants to a level that the country can handle. The laws are also in place to determine the allegience of those entering. What would the allegience of the illegal immigrants that are currently on our soil be if the United States went to war with their home country? Would they support us, or would we suddenly be faced with millions of guerilla fighters entrenched in our nation? And one more thing. When the Republicans controlled Congress and the presidency, to my knowledge they accomplished absolutely nada for the benefit of the United States and the people. The ONLY thing that they have done that affected me in a positive way was the tax cut when Mr. Bush first took office.

[rogerpaul12]

wrong rant!

First of all take ur rant elsewhere! This is not the site for ur views on illegal immigration.<br />And instead of blaming poor Mexicans for the troubles of ur country, why dont u go after the real culprits? ur bozo president who is spending billions in Iraq--hello how many jobs could investing that money in the US create? Or the companies that outsource American jobs to far away countries. Thats millions of jobs more than the few that illegal immigrants take. Man! Enlighten yourselves on the real issues before spouting off. And, by the way, if you take the historical view, every American is an illegal immigrant by descent--after all, the country was stolen from the native Indians.

[Number6Prisoner]

6 Years of Pirate Love

So while there hasn't been any form of US enforcement whatsoever to private companies like Blackwater over in Iraq for 6 years which has allowed them to be "pirates" and do whatever they feel like over there just now pass a law to hold such private companies accountable by trial in the US for illegal actions. This was only done to protect their bums in the near future. Now software piracy, that's a whole other thing!! We have been putting a cap in their rears for the past few years because they are really "harming" people. Please........<br />It always boils down to one thing - $$$. If interests or big businesses are losing their own money then it is a crime. If it is not, most of them could really care less what is really considered a crime in America........

[nameistaken]

What about the writers?

I understand that the record company is losing money but, what I'd like to see is the court follow the money. How much of this lawsuit money goes back to the writers and the artist? I would bet... not a single dime! <br /><br />I am a musician and a nerd so I see both sides. They say it is theft. There is no physical object being taken, it is 0's and 1's. 0's and 1's are what everything digital is made of. When the RIAA gathers information on these people, they also are taking 0's and 1's. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.<br /><br />As a musician I am trying to find a way to make money in advertising. We just have to find a different way make money because digital is changing everything and we can't just sue our way through it.

[itango]

Nameistaken is correct.

Theft is when you deprive anyone of their property, e.g. if there was only one CD in the possession of the RIAA that had certain music in it, and someone stole it, and the RIAA was deprived of the music in that CD, for a period of time, or forever.<br /><br />Music file sharing is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, in which someone shares a music file, but the RIAA still possesses such file in electronic form, and can continue to sell it in CDs, electronic downloads, etc., and is not "deprived" of the music content. This is why music, movies and software are "licensed" to you, not "sold" outright. The only thing that is "sold" to the consumer is the media (disc) - the music, movie or software are licensed.<br /><br />Having made that distinction, it is absolutely wrong to infringe copyrights, and violate the terms of the licenses for the music, movie or software. I have seen many excuses by infringers, namely that the music is too expensive, that no one would buy the music anyway, etc. etc. But all such excuses are irrelevant, the bottom line is, if one does not intend to abide by the terms of the license, one should not download, copy or share the the music.<br /><br />For people who cannot afford the price of music, to listen to the music, they can check out the CD at the library, or listen to the radio, or play the album at the music store.<br /><br />Although I am not in favor of those who infringe copyrights or their excuses, I think that the AA's (RIAA, MPAA, etc.) are making a big mistake by making their customers their enemy. At this point in time they are legally within their rights to sue anyone for copyright infringement, but I think suing your customers is a very poor business model, especially since it appears that the worst cases of piracy, infringement and music re-distribution are taking place outside the US and EU. <br /><br />I guess that the reason they are going after their customers in the US and EU is that people in such countries are a much easier target than organized mass infringers in Russia, Eastern Europe, India, China, Africa, and the Middle East.<br /><br />Finally, although typically under copyright law one would have to prove actual infringement (actual sharing) and economic damages, I believe there have been court decisions holding that just having the infringing music in a P2P file (making infringed music available for download) without proof of actual sharing does constitute infringement. So this is why in this lawsuit the mother was convicted.

[joe1776]

THE PUBLIC LIBRARY - Check out your CD FREE and LEGAL

THE PUBLIC LIBRARY - Check out your CD FREE and LEGAL<br /><br />You can go to your public library and REQUEST ANY CD YOU WANT and they will buy it and add it to their collection. Then the RIAA can't sue our kids.<br /><br />If everyone TODAY would DONATE ALL THEIR CDs to their LOCAL LIBRARIES, the RIAA would be castrated overnight.

[kellysontheroad]

Missing the point

I think everyone is missing the point on this one.<br /><br />We now live in a country where large multi-national companies sue single mothers, children, and invalids. <br /><br />The divide between the rich and the poor just got wider.<br /><br />And yes we should boycott RIAA (do a search)

[bingotul]

Classic example of treating the symptoms but not the root cause

I'd like to say that I'm shocked at this verdict, but it seems to fit right in with our history. The government has gone after this poor individual, who may have technically done something wrong, but does not seem to have done anything about the Kazaa's of the world.<br /><br />If they want to stop the peer to peer issue of file sharing, don't go after the users, go after Kazaa! Shut them down and then the user's can't use them. It's the same principle as the war on drugs. Go after the Columbian Cartel and the local streets dry up. If all you do is go after the small user, you'll never get ahead of the curve.<br /><br />If the government really wants to end consumer copying of files etc, then they should outlaw all recordable media, VCR's, DVR's etc! Since the days of cassettes, people have been recording songs off of the radio. Peer to Peer networks are the same thing using today's technology. Maybe we should go back to paper and pencil's to slow down people's opportunities to copy files...let's be real!<br /><br />If you try to do that, then I guess we are only one step away from a communist society where we have no freedoms at all.<br /><br />Big Brother seems to be watching, but I'm afraid that it's watching the wrong channels!

[Scott Gardener]

Fear tactics

I believe they are employing fear tactics, with the idea of bullying and coersion to force others to avoid facing similar fates. They "want to make an example." I believe the word I'm looking for is "terror." Yes, that's it. "Terror." They wish to instill "terror."<br /><br />I think you can see where I'm going with this.

[Blito]

Yet congress is wanting to make "sweeping" changes in tech copyright law?

So I can't copy a song and when I do I really don't know if I am breaking the law or not since there are too many restrictions. How many little girls and families have had to be robbed by the thief RIAA for a few thousand dollars? These so called sweeping changes in tech copyright laws are geared toward hard to understand digital copyright laws like the VOIP industry that give way too much power to the larger corps like ATT that are using the current confusion over these types of devices to abuse people and small companies.<br /><br />It just shows the Republicans gear for the large cooperations but Bush is an extremist outrage unwilling to look at the little guy! Although I am still voting Republican for the President as I think the more recent candidates have more brains and will not go for the more extreme communism the Dems are preaching.

[George Riddick]

RIAA Win in Duluth

What a Strategic Blunder!<br /><br />You know, I have never agreed with the folks at the Electronic Freedom Foundation, or other groups who seem dedicated to changing the long standing laws of copyright protection in this country. But I have noted one thing.<br /><br />Their allies seem to include some of the brightest young minds in this country. From the law professors and students at Stanford, Berkeley, Harvard, Duke, and others ... to the lawyers at some of the most prestigious IP firms in the land ... to the engineers and scientists at some of our leading technology companies in this country ... the intellectual brainpower in this self-described "new wave" group has been impressive.<br /><br />How this group could allow a strategic blunder like what we've just seen come out of Duluth is beyond me. Why these organizations didn't get involved, study the case thoroughly, and encourage Ms. Thomas, and her obviously inexperienced attorney, to surrender is truly phenomenal.<br /><br />This is not the individual, the attorney, the forum, or the time I would want a precedent such as this established. What a strategic blunder!<br /><br />Maybe these people are not nearly as smart as I gave them credit for. Apparently, they all sat back and naively thought (make that "wished") that Ms. Thomas would somehow end the RIAA onslaught forever.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong. I applaud the decisions made by both the judge and jury in this precedent setting case. The anti-copyright crowd will suffer the consequences of this loss big time. Our economy will be strengthened. And these decisions will do more to help curtail widespread Internet Piracy than all the politicians, copyright industry executives, and lobbyists in this entire country put together.<br /><br />I thought good lawyers advised their clients of the downside of their attempts to "change the law of the land" and could be sanctioned if they chose to pursue only "the big payday" or their personal "15 minutes of fame" instead. Read the copyright laws. Displaying and downloading copyright-protected works owned by others without their permission is illegal. It has both civil and criminal consequences. And, as in the case of Ms. Thomas in Duluth, they can be severe. She will have to pay back nearly $500,000 by having her pay check garnished for the rest of her life.<br /><br />But she doesn't get any sympathy from me. If she had taken this many copyrighted songs out of Best Buy or Wal-Mart, she'd be in jail right now. And owe back a like amount of money as well. None of us - right or left - want to live in a lawless society. It's interesting to debate legal principles and consequences, but fearing to go outside for a cup of coffee or a loaf of bread is not something we have had any experience with in this country at all. Thank goodness!<br /><br />And if you don't think organized white collar crime families are behind much of this Internet piracy epidemic, you'd better think again.<br /><br />COUNTERPOINT:<br /><br />Here is the one issue I have discussed with my 20-year-old son and I do have "conflicts" with. Google infringes more legitimate copyrights every single day than Ms. Thomas could do in a lifetime. Do we now have a country that has completely different standards for the billionaires than we do for the normal working folks? If so, I sure hope this is short-lived as well. I think I'd rather give up the coffee and the bread than have to worry about Google stealing from me every single day.<br /><br />What's your opinion?<br /><br />George P. Riddick, III<br />Chairman/CEO<br />Imageline, Inc. <br /><br />[e-mail]

[itango]

George,

please do not try to blame the lawyers - they already get blamed too much as it is, and such blame is usually unjust. In response to your question, no lawyer can just "get involved" in a case, and advise someone who is not their client, without the client agreeing to the representation. <br /><br />Also remember that no one knows what really happened in court, except the people that were there. Media reports are usually inaccurate, or they leave out many details - I have had personal experience with this. It could be that EFF made an offer of support to this mother, and she rejected it - it could be that her lawyer advised her to settle prior to litigation just like thousands of others, that he told her they had a very weak case, and she ignored his advice and chose instead to keep fighting, with a sad result. I also have had personal experience with clients ignoring my advice, to their detriment.<br /><br />Or, it could be that none of the parties you name in your post even knew she had received a demand letter from the RIAA (I only found out about her existence after the decision was in, and I read it in the paper) so how could all the "smart lawyers" you name have helped her, if they did not know about the lawsuit until it was over?<br /><br />Based on the jury instructions I read in the paper that were given by the judge, the jury had no choice but to find her guilty. However, I did not see all the jury instructions - the paper never printed them all. She could appeal the instructions, and I notice from an article in the paper that several copyright lawyers have volunteered to defend her in the appeal.<br /><br />Please see my other post relating to this article, I also have no sympathy for copyright infringers, but I think the RIAA is making a huge mistake by suing their customers, and by not going after well organized pirates overseas that infringe millions of songs at a time.

[Jamesmeredith2]

Funny statement coming from you...

"I applaud the decisions made by both the judge and jury in this precedent setting case. The anti-copyright crowd will suffer the consequences of this loss big time. Our economy will be strengthened. And these decisions will do more to help curtail widespread Internet Piracy than all the politicians, copyright industry executives, and lobbyists in this entire country put together. "<br /><br />I think this is rather a funny statement coming from someone who may find themselves defending their self in such a case one day. You sell digital imaging equipment and how long do you believe it will be before some corporation comes after you for selling "potentially infringing equipment". Then we may see how much you applaud the decisions of such a joke of a trial. <br /><br />Perhaps when that happens you will better understand why the copyright laws need changing; changed to become balanced in regards to the public and the copyright holder. Do you realize that with the current copyright that neither you, nor I or any of our kids will ever see any of the copyrighted materials go into public domain while we are alive? 70 years + another 70 years is what it is set at, 140 years before the copyrights expire, that is if the law is not changed before that time to extend it. <br /><br />It is claimed that we can legally make a back-up copy of any material we own, BUT... we cannot bypass any protection that it might have without breaking the law. How utterly ridiculous is that. <br /><br />The laws of this country are not decided by the people any more, they are decided by which politician gets the most donations by the best lobbying group at the Whitehouse. <br /><br />I guess the upside of what we can look forward to is that these millions of so called criminals will have the chance to be the decision makers one day. Those thousands of college kids that are being sued will one day be the CEO?s of these corporations, lawyers, senators, congressmen and perhaps even one may land in the president?s chair. What do you think they will remember when they look back on the harassment and humility that they faced at the hands of a corporation while in college? Do you think they will say ?hey that taught me a lesson? I believe so, and they will do so as they vote to change our draconian laws!<br /><br />James

[Warren Taylor]

Bush agrees

Of course his agrees, his in Corp Americas pocket. How much of this fine goes to the artist...ZERO.<br />That tell tells you something, if GWB (worst in history) says its good...run away.

[skynet10011]

Legal but not right

Copyright law is not static and has been revised many times <br />according to the wishes and lobbying efforts of groups like the <br />RIAA. Unfortunatley most people now disagree with the law and <br />enforcement is required to put the sheep back into their pen. <br />Baah. haha.<br /><br />Read the Wiki --<br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA" target="_newWindow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA</a><br /><br />Remember that RIAA members have been convicted of price <br />fixing, anticompetitive behavior, cheating artists out of thier <br />copyrights, and paying bribes to radio stations.<br /><br />Also remember the RIAA is owned and operated by the WUSI <br />gang (pronounce woosie) <br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RIAA_member_labels" target="_newWindow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RIAA_member_labels</a><br /> * Warner Music Group<br /> * Universal Music Group<br /> * Sony BMG Music Entertainment<br /> * EMI<br /><br />Rather than 99cent songs, it would be far more productive to <br />stop buying the Sony PC where you store copies of your music, <br />or skip the trip to Universal theme parks, or cancel you AOL or <br />Roadrunner account with TImeWarner so you can't download <br />anymore.