Comments on: Copyright bill boosts penalties, creates new agency

Top Democrats and Republicans are backing legislation to establish a new federal IP enforcement agency--and increase penalties for civil and criminal copyright infringement.

[gurfrip]

Not Enough and in Wrong Directon

The biggest infringments are occuring right now by email service providers and other internet monitoring companies. Corporations who take intentional part in copyright infringment and intellectual property theft should be subject to the same FRAUD LAWS as individuals.

Specifically the power of Marvea Injunction against large Information Service Providers that use the TRUST generated between service provider and client to intercept and utilize Intellectual Property for PROFIT without written and expressed authorization of its creator.

The limit on fines should not exceed the captial value of the corporation and upon evidenciary proceeding in the justice department the assets of said corporation should be siezed until settlement is paid.

In the Case of Google, Inc.'s Theft of You Tube by Fraud now in the USDOJ and SEC, Google, Inc.'s total public value of 230 billion dollars should be siezed by the United States Justice Department and held to the benefit of the Injured Party until Settlement and Return of Property is completed.

In this case the Justice Department would become the Trustee for Google, Inc. shareholders and the defrauded individual.

This common criminal activity has reached gigantic proportions and is being perpetrated in orchistrated fashion by major Internet Technology Providers who have found infringement and Intellectual Propety Crimes and expedient way to enhance profits without paying for advanced assets.

Coupled with Classified Cooperation in Surveillance Issues, major Internet related companies have been granted unrestricted lisence to steal from the International Public without prosecution.

Do you hear me GOOGLE, INC.?

[FO-FI_FO_454]

MARK CUBAN'S MAVERICK BLOG HAS THIS MATTER SOLVED.

I read Mark's blog concerning this topic yesterday prior to the announcement of a new "Agency being created."

Mark had a sensible conclusion. The ISP (what ever ISP) should be entrusted through legislation to monitor the up link bandwidth of a user, thus, giving the ISP the right (based on legislation) to pull the plug if there is an excessive amount of uploading, and also downloading. After that, well, let's bring in the guys and gals of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. NOT KIDDING!

What do we download? Software updates, videos, images, text and html, what else? We all have an IP address, so, we can be found. Our bandwidth usage is also monitored, so, it's simple, I do believe that Mark Cuban has the answer.

Essentially, his answer is so practical, so meaningful, that to NOT ADOPT his remedy for P2P file sharing would be STUPID.

Don't know exactly where Mark's link is, have no time, doing Hanukkah Latkes (Potato Pancakes) on the stove but search for it:

"Mark Cuban's Maverick Blog."

Thanks for this opportunity to TALKBACK....and now, some Latkes. Have a lovely day....TTFN.

PS TTFN - Ta Ta For Now (Vintage WW2, from the United Kingdom).

[nniebur]

Perhaps the Strict Laws will actually Reduce Sales

This entire thing is insane....totally based on blind greed! Everyone knows that the artists whose work may be copied are only getting a fraction of the profits for their work as it is! In Fact a percetage so small that what the recording industry does to them is all but theft of their intellectual property in a moral sense. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right! As history has shown with the ability of "joe blow, average person" to create copies of movies has shown, this ability doesn't reduce sales, it actually spawned the Video/DVD rental business. Sales haven't dropped as although one could in actuality make a(multiple copies) of these formats, they don't do it. Maybe early on when this technology was new they did but over time most found it cumbersome, ( most can't even program the time on their coffee pot) and generally the perception that if it isn't the real deal from the manufacturer, then it is just not as good prevails. So for most folk, it is just not worth the bother and they will buy what they want rather than bootleg it! Sure there will always be a few who try to gain financially from it but illegal copies of such are frequently of poor quality. How many illegal video copies are out there in the VHS format? They will die off. As for "Civil Asset Forfieture"....Not only does this nearly nulify the Constitution, but creates a situation where the policing agency must actually allow and promote some of the activitiy it is to stop in order to maintain itself. If given the power to take whatever they determine might have been used illegaly to finance their purpose it is only a matter of time before not only will they become money hungry but they will be dependant upon it. Therefore, they have no motivation to actually stop the activity they are to police else they become 'unnecessary' and unable to justify their existance or fund it. Perhaps the RIAA would claim that they would like nothing better? Who or what then would they blame for when their sales decline? An Artist no longer needs corporate backing to promote them when even odd persons doing odd things that would otherwise never be noticed attaining instant fame through the Internet. An independant artist could easily sell their own to all and keep the vast majority of the profit as they should. If they are talented enough, their artistic endeavors will be sustained. Their fans will choose what they like and get to be exposed to not some rich fat cat deciding who hears or sees what! I do not agree with those who deliberately set out to cheat the creators of the works they get to enjoy, however, after the novelty has worn off, which through their protests the RIAA has perpetuated, I'm confident that the mass majority of people will not allow the artists to continue to have their work stolen....but only if the artists stand up as well against the industry's greed!

[johnthedj]

Since when did Taxes go to support Businesses Agendas

Since when did Taxes go to support Businesses Agendas, I'm mean really, copyright infringement is a civil matter. The MPAA and RIAA are fearful of a society with free following exchange of ideas and things are created to benefit each other. This bill bites at the core of a free society. When does it end? Politicians will make criminals of all or most of their supporters. The government needs to stay out of civil matters. The RIAA and MPAA only work for the studios not the artists. The artists wouldn't be raped by the studios if the real focus was for the benefit of the artist. When you create anything to share in a society it should be free. Slavery went out years ago. If the government passes this bill it will enslave everyone to conform to pay-per-view life. Intellectual property is a lose term at best. If I hmm a tune in my head should I have to pay royalties. If people are stealing anything that means it costs too much. We won?t be superpower for long if this passes. All the people will be in prison because of some form of IP violation. Why not have the crime fit the punishment. $20 CD copied ok $60 fine. If you get on a train without buying a ticket you don?t pay $30,000.00 You pay double or triple the cost of the ticket.
If the artists were paid more than the tiny little .07 per song that the labels pay. They wouldn?t have to worry about people stealing their works. Why doesn?t the government through the studios in jail for extortion and racketeering? WAKE UP Politicians! You won?t stay in office because your supporters will be in Federal Prison next to Buba the child molester. Get real people?

[George Riddick]

PRO IP Imageline speaks out

Hello Declan,

I noticed you mentioned my company Imageline in your Dec. 5th posting about the new PRO IP bill in Congress.

Although you did not get the facts straight from the Appeals Court ruling in 2003 (the maximum penalty for a willfully infringed work is actually $150,000.00 per work, not $30,000.00), your point is well taken.

Another correction. Compilation penalties are decided differently when the same party owns the compilation AND the individual works that make up the compilation. You should know this, Declan. Journalism is treated the exact same way.

The fact that is has taken Congress this long to get this obvious pro-infringer loophole out of our copyright laws (and the courts) is astonishing to me. We have been fighting these "piracy" battles now for over ten years.
The notion that stealing 7,500 copyright-registered songs, photographs, articles, or illustrations and widely distributing them via the Internet around the world should have the same maximum penalty as posting one such "work" on your website is completely preposterous. ABSURD.

The 4th Circuit simply got this one wrong. But who could blame them after listening to the nonsense they heard from the copyright defense attorneys representing Xoom, Macmillan, and NBC.
Finally, legislative (and hopefully judicial, as well) logic has set in and the people who legitimately own these copyrights (including NBC and CNET, I might add) might have a fighting chance in court.

Both the civil remedies and criminal statutes of our laws need to be aggressively enforced if we want to see these astronomical piracy rates decline in this country and around the world. Eight out of ten copyrighted works being stolen in Russia, Brazil, and China should not be acceptable to ANYONE who lives in this country. We all are negatively impacted by this digital piracy epidemic.

I am not talking "theory" here, Declan. Tiny little Imageline has been forced to go to court to protect our copyrights in electronic graphic arts content (clip art illustrations, design templates, logos/emblems, cartoons, and animations) on eight separate occasions over the past ten years. We have NEVER lost a case.

However, with bizarre rulings like the one you referenced in your article, it would often cost us five to ten times as much to protect our property as we could collect under the 4th Circuit's interpretation of the copyright laws maximum penalty allowable at the time. Ridiculous.

What other crimes in this country are treated this way?

Weak enforcement such as this actually encourages willful copyright infringement ... it does not deter it. You are doing your readers a disservice by not telling them this complete story accurately.

We need these enhancements in the law and the proper resources to assure they work. PRO IP is long overdue. The future stakes for this country as a whole are enormously high.

Bravo to the bipartisan group in Congress who put these new laws together. We are FINALLY getting the penalties in line with where they should have been all along.

For your further information and clarification, the U.S. Copyright Office encourages the registration of multiple copyrighted works for certain categories of copyrighted material, such as photographs (ask Bill Gates and Corbis), poems, graphic artwork, cartoons, etc. on one registration form. Administratively, that is the only way the Copyright Office and the Library of Congress could possibly keep up with all the registration paperwork and deposit materials.

Should a legitimate copyright holder be penalized for following the rules and regulations of the copyright office, saving us tax supported expenses, and adhering to various administrative efficiencies? I don't think so.

Never has Congress intended to limit the remedies in a copyright case based on a company or individual with legitmate copyrights that are registered properly complying with the efficiency rules and regulations of the U.S. Copyright Office. The defense lawyers in the Xoom case simply failed to tell the judges the truth. Read the complete court records and the filing Imageline made with the U.S. Supreme Court in late 2003 yourself if you want to better understand this important issue.

You should probably also mention to you readers that a federal court judge in Northern California confirmed a ruling for Imageline of over $2.6 million at about the same time this Xoom case was underway. Logic prevailed in this California case, and registration efficiencies were not allowed to play out in the hearing. At least the 9th Circuit understood the logic of the who is the "good guy" and who is the "bad guy" in these piracy cases.

Hopefully, these new laws will help get all the federal circuits (and the DOJ) in sync and finally show these digital pirates that we mean business ... and that we have had enough of this kind of flagrant lawlessness in our industry ... and in our society.

If you want to give away CNET's proprietary property, go ahead. That's your right. But please don't advocate people stealing ours ... especially where the maximum penalty they can receive does not exceed the value of their crimes. We have illustrators, designers, programmers, digitizers, cartoonists, and animators here at Imageline who like being paid for their hard work and talents.

Just like you journalists do.

Thank you for listening.

George P. Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.

[e-mail]

[hadaso]

A company that infringes on FOSS license ...

A company that infringes on FOSS license wil now risk forfeiture of all of its computing and networking equipment...
So would big media conglomerates that fail to clear all small copyright issues.
Oh, wait... this only applies to small time infringers that don't do it for profit. Those that actually do it to make millions of $$ would be exempt!

[johnthedj]

If a criminal breaks in a steals all you DVD and CDs

If criminals breaks in a steals all you DVD and CDs. They steal all you purchased Interlectual Property right. So how come they don't fine them $150,000 per DVD or song on the CD? If the argument is file trading by one individual should be charged that. When my freind DJ John Roberts had all his music stolen. THe police said well you should have it insured. He did and the insurance company only paid him for about a hundred dollars. That was his livleyhood. Over 3000 cds were stolen. So why is the fine so high. To share a less than perfect sound recording. You can't argue that it is lost revenue because their is no way of knowing if the person liked the saong and kept it or liked it and went out and bought it. The RIAA and MPAA are using heresay to prove their damages. Statistics they use are possible loses. Come on I can't believe that 206 congress members are this stupid or they don't do their JOBs and read their own bills. What about our rights as purchasers of the set material? I know lawers, business people, and teachers, whom download files and still buy the Cd or DVD. The RIAA and MPAA have limited days left. So their efforts have With online radio and file sharing are ditch effort to try and keep the pockets stuffed with the talented artists they rape and steal more revenue than any fileshare. Look at the tiny percentage Artists get compared to the Studios and laywers of these organizations and you'll see I'm right.

[Karl-Lessig]

Community Property?

Hey Declan, thanks for that update on how "well paid" the White House position will be in the new bill.

By the way, how's that Google stock working out for you?