Senators want Justice Department to sue P2P pirates
American peer-to-peer users worried about being sued into oblivion by the recording industry may soon have a much bigger concern: facing off against the U.S. Department of Justice.
Two senators, a Democrat and a Republican, introduced a bill on Wednesday that would unleash the world's largest law firm on Internet pirates. It would authorize the Justice Department to file civil lawsuits against people engaged in peer-to-peer copyright infringement--with the proceeds going to the company or person who owns the copyright.
"This legislation is a simple bill that would give the Department of Justice the authority to prosecute copyright violations as civil wrongs," Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said during a hearing on Wednesday. Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican, is a co-sponsor.
This is not the first time this bill, called the Pirate Act, has surfaced in Washington. Despite criticisms from civil liberties groups and complaints from peer-to-peer companies that it amounted to corporate welfare for copyright holders, the Pirate Act has cleared the Senate three times. (Here's our coverage after the June 2004 vote.)
The Pirate Act enjoys strong support from large copyright holders. The Recording Industry Association of America said on Wednesday: "We commend Senators Leahy and Cornyn for their commitment and leadership to ensuring improved enforcement of IP protection."
And Dan Glickman, chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, said the Pirate Act will "strengthen the government's law enforcement resources to crack down on intellectual property theft."
Oddly, though, the Justice Department has been less than enthusiastic about the measure in the past. One top department official said a few years ago that the idea is "something that people should take with a grain of salt"--and while "the Justice Department is there to enforce the law, there's something to be said for those who help themselves."
The Pirate Act's portion devoted to civil copyright enforcement is identical to the 2004 version. It says that "the attorney general may commence a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who engages in conduct constituting (a copyright) offense." Anyone who reproduces or distributes copyrighted works that total $1,000 is liable for punishing statutory damages.
In addition, a federal judge "shall" award "restitution to the copyright owner aggrieved by the conduct."
Criminal charges? Nah.
Under a 1997 law called the No Electronic Theft Act, federal prosecutors can file criminal charges against peer-to-peer users who make songs available for download. A July 2002 letter from prominent politicians to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft urged the prosecution of Americans who "allow mass copying from their computer over peer-to-peer networks."
But the Justice Department has been less than eager to file criminal charges against people like Jammie Thomas, who recently was found liable for $222,000 in damages in a lawsuit brought by the RIAA. Federal prosecutors have indicated that they're hesitant to target peer-to-peer pirates with criminal charges for two reasons: Imprisoning file-swapping teens on felony charges isn't the department's top priority, and it's difficult to make criminal charges stick.
The relative ease of winning civil cases compared to criminal prosecutions is one big reason why the RIAA and MPAA adore the Pirate Act, called the Intellectual Property Enforcement Act in its latest incarnation. The burden of proof is lower, and a civil defendant has far fewer rights under the law.
There are two other benefits for copyright holders. It's cheaper for copyright holders because they don't have to take the the risk of hiring expensive lawyers to sue a defendant who's judgment-proof (and can't cough up a check if found liable). And judges and juries may be more likely to side with Justice Department prosecutors, who claim they're looking out for the public interest, than law firms employed by the for-profit companies comprising the RIAA.
The new version of the Pirate Act, in addition to civil enforcement, also:
* Creates an "operational unit" of at least 10 FBI agents to investigate intellectual property offenses. It requires the Justice Department to assign a federal prosecutor to Hong Kong and Budapest, Hungary, "to assist in the coordination of the enforcement of intellectual property laws" and allocates $12 million per year.
* Awards $20 million per year in additional funding to the FBI and the Justice Department's criminal division to investigate computer crimes.
* Amends existing law dealing with criminal forfeiture. Says that "any property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part to commit or facilitate the commission" of certain intellectual property offenses is subject to forfeiture. Civil forfeiture is also included. This expands on a recent counterfeit goods-related law.
News.com's Anne Broache contributed to this report.
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan.
We can take it a step further...why buy an auto alarm for my car. The government can simply sue anyone who steals my car, and force them to pay restitution.
Why should anyone do anything...let the government pick up the tab and be responsible for making it right.
Disgusting.
Association of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one
Nation indivisible, with (no) Liberty and (no) Justice for all..."
I thought maybe the Government or RIAA would catch on, but they're just too dense. They can't get past the greed to realize that this is not a morally justified way of solving the problem at hand.
This is going to take some real out in the streets protesting and action. Signs, yelling, Oprah and everything, if anything is going to change.
The whole concept of civil law never really sat right with me anyway. At least not the way it is being used in America right now. It is being used as a cop out to say, well you don't get all the protection of the law because you're not a real criminal.
Hmm, I haven't actually broken any laws, yet I still somehow am being punished? If I am not a real criminal then why don't you let me go home and we can forget about all this? It's just a cop out. Either charge someone, or don't.
while not paying for the music you listen to but are outraged by
the alleged greed of the RIAA. You have no ethics, no moral code
and believe it is perfectly ok to steal an artist's (and producer's)
work but label the RIAA as evil personified. You'll download a
song without paying for it but wouldn't walk into WalMart and
shoplift a CD. Or would you?
How perfectly ironic.
author/RIAA never owned the work" and "the CD is a physical
object" to get that over with.
But beyond that, this is a BIG deal. For the first time, the
government is giving itself the autonomous authority to file civil
lawsuits. The Department of Justice / executive branch will not
only investigate and prosecute crimes, but also torts (civil
disputes and contract violations). It's never had that ability
before and doing so opens up a huge can of worms.
Not only would this require the DOJ to file suits for which there's
insufficient evidence of a crime, but it would also give them the
ability to do things like: challenege marriage contracts, wills,
employment contracts, sue people for slandering government
employees, sue to invalidate patents/copyrights/trademarks, get
injunctions against publication or production of materials,
dispute zoning of property, etc.
It also sets a bad precedent. The RIAA is requesting the DOJ take
over it's civil prosecutions for a number of reasons: they are
costly and frequently unsuccessful (offload the cost to the
taxpayer), the settlement scheme they developed may violate the
RICO Act (the DOJ would be indemnified against complaints), the
suits damage the reputation of the RIAA and member companies
(the DOJ would assume the role as the bully), and the DOJ has
more resources to obtain the evidence (unfettered access to
phone records, calls, and internet traffic).
the artist (and producer -- you'r obviously NOT an artist) with a
REAL ACTUARIALLY CORRECT ACCOUNTING??
What about pay-as-go not mumbo gumbo jumbo accounting of
"expenses", including YOU and the "producer" (what is
"production value" anyway?), and then if it is in the red or black,
so what -- it is an advance against future royalties ...
thanks for the peanuts ive changed my flight!!
Copyright law is wrong, but I do not break it.
RIAA and MPAA basically want the federal government, i.e. all of us tax payers, to foot the bill and take the heat for chasing down penny-ante song and movie copyright violations for them.
They have discovered that doing it themselves is not cost effective. So they want to soak the rest of us for it.
E-mail your senators and let them know what kind of BS they're being fed.
man...
i'll bet some senators are getting their fair share
of kickbacks and hookers for this one.
This bill adds unnecessary functions (and cost) to government and pretty much amounts to corporate welfare. I could also see the government itself abusing this in some fashion. This is not a good idea.
Quit pretending that a lot of people not wanting to pay makes it right. Gather 100 friends and storm your supermarket! Yeah! We're all doing it, so we're in the right! See how that goes.
The charge is treason and is laid upon all members involved with the National budget since 1970. The Justice department should be prosecuting these crimes against the country. If spending the Public's money like a Lotto winner on Crack is not a crime then the system is completely broken.
When countries sell out their US $ assets the buck will soon be less worth than a toilette paper.
It is coming for sure, it happened to Romans, the Brits, now the US$="Peso" is following the same road. This way you will get rid of those who are outsourcing your source of existence.
The fact that Leahy has proposed this law is just more evidence that the US government is too corrupt to be saved. The people that govern don't represent the people. They represent the money. Money gets people elected. Also, our election system is not secure. Citizens of foreign countries that are not citizens of the US actually register and vote in our elections. Ballots are conveniently lost and conveniently found determining the outcome of close elections (e.g. 2004 Washington governors race). Those in power refuse to reform the system and oppose any effort by others to do so.
A simple short-term boycott of the big-label music industry should send a message that cannot be ignored.
As a result I have been enjoying legally free independent and local music.
Many accept donations, which lets me pay the value I set on a download.
I generally give $5 for a good album or .50 for a good song.
The RIAA is a dinosaur, they are extinct already, all that remains is the death spasms. In less than 20 years the way that music is produced and distributed will not include big labels, and they are running scared.
on patent reform you are on (and if it is the "software patents
are bad" side, even better) this is absolutely absurd and
atrocious ... it reeks of the riaa and mpaa inuendo/testimony
that p2p is for pedophiles and drug dealers
these same two senators pushing S. 1145 (The Patent Reform
Act of 2007) -- which DOES NOTHING about software patents
and is backed by large IT companies (well, IBM changed its mind
when Glaxo sued the Patent Office) -- who need no introduction
and are not going to make anything cheaper for you -- promise
-- oh, and rimm is pleasantly pushing too from our northern
state of ontario!! shoulda settled for 20 mil in 2002 (?) --
INFRINGEMENT IS REAL
back to reality ... the same week the writers go on strike and the
drums are beating for patent reform & radiohead makes a splash
with WASTE laid to DRM >> we get more help FOR or is it FROM
hollywood??? huh??? what do they employ a tenth of a tenth of a
percent of people???
if ever any one reading this post wondered exactly how you get
paid, it is time to wake up and contact your representative and
senator ... this is not just about the internet is tubes (thanks sen
stevens) or who invented the internet (thanks reality
distortionists) but who gets paid and how much --
INCLUDING YOU!! this is truly your time to explain what the
whole fuss about the internet is?? this is not "you dont get it
time"?? this is "gee, am i going to survive on ebay and a prayer?"
or "i want MY intellectual property to be protected!" or "how will i
protect my own work and attract investment"
whatever issues you hvae concerning intellectual property, DRM,
P2P, et al. make them known as the us patent system is not only
the best in the world but the only wedge you have in competing
with the big boys ... if a bunch of labels and studios can get the
Senate to act on this in a time of war, wake up and start thinking
about your future ... playright, actor or singer (probably not).
- Well, we all know what to do........
-
by itango
November 8, 2007 3:53 PM PST
- 1. Vote these Senators out of office, and anyone else who would approve such misguided legislation!!!
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
-
by doodad69
December 23, 2008 7:06 AM PST
- itango, although I agree with the basis of your angst, I think we can agree that the idiots in the Senate are not the ones chasing Obama bin Laden, thank God. The Democrats would want him arrested and tried in a liberal NYC or San Francisco courtroom. This country CAN do more than one thing at a time, but the fact of the matter is the idiots of this country elected the very Senators and Representatives who OWE the MPAA and RIAA! The Democrats. I think the Republicans that voted for anti-piracy laws were being ironic, but dumb nonetheless. Were I in the House or Senate, I would have voted 'nay' in the same way John Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence. (By the way: Yes, I know I misspelled it, but Obama is the biggest enemy this country has right now, and I would bet that you voted for him.)
-
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (59 Comments)2. Stop buying music and movies - rent only or go to the library.
It is outrageous when the resources of a Government agency are (mis)applied to enforce a law benefitting private business groups. And of course, the taxpayer is requred to pick up the tab.
We cannot find Osama Bin Laden, are having trouble with terrorists in Pakistan and Iraq, live under threat of attack by terrorists (both home-grown and foreign), have students attacking schools and universities killing other students, have pedophiles and child molesters, drug addicts, other murderers, child abusers, etc. that it seems we cannot catch and imprison, but we need the DOJ to chase file-sharing teenagers??????