Gonzales Proposes New Crime... "Attempted Copyright Infringement"

tadpole256 · 05-15-2007, 01:08 PM

Tech news blog - Gonzales proposes new crime: "Attempted" copyright infringement | CNET News.com

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.

Can anyone seriously support this administration anymore?

dem..!..rep · 05-15-2007, 03:39 PM

* Create a new crime of life imprisonment for using pirated software. Anyone using counterfeit products who "recklessly causes or attempts to cause death" can be imprisoned for life. During a conference call, Justice Department officials gave the example of a hospital using pirated software instead of paying for it.
* Permit more wiretaps for piracy investigations. Wiretaps would be authorized for investigations of Americans who are "attempting" to infringe copyrights.
* Allow computers to be seized more readily. Specifically, property such as a PC "intended to be used in any manner" to commit a copyright crime would be subject to forfeiture, including civil asset forfeiture. Civil asset forfeiture has become popular among police agencies in drug cases as a way to gain additional revenue, and it is problematic and controversial.
* Increase penalties for violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's anticircumvention regulations. Criminal violations are currently punished by jail times of up to 10 years and fines of up to $1 million. The IPPA would add forfeiture penalties.
* Add penalties for "intended" copyright crimes. Certain copyright crimes currently require someone to commit the "distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period of at least 10 copies" valued at more than $2,500. The IPPA would insert a new prohibition: actions that were "intended to consist of" distribution.
* Require Homeland Security to alert the Recording Industry Association of America. That would happen when CDs with "unauthorized fixations of the sounds, or sounds and images, of a live musical performance" are attempted to be imported. Neither the Motion Picture Association of America nor the Business Software Alliance (nor any other copyright holder, such as photographers, playwrights or news organizations, for that matter) would qualify for this kind of special treatment.

Homeland Security - guarding RIAA's "property". Now if that isn't hitting the terrorists where it hurts I don't know what is. At least Osama and his merry band will NOT be listening to pirated music if this passes. Not and not get punished for it, that's for sure!

billybobama · 05-15-2007, 10:26 PM

Gonzales is just another member of the Bush Crime Family.

tadpole256 · 05-17-2007, 11:07 AM

This is getting way beyond the point of being ridiculous...

billybobama · 05-21-2007, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tadpole256

This is getting way beyond the point of being ridiculous...

Remember that scene in the Godfather when they go after the Godfather while he is in the hospital. WOW - sounds just like Gonzales and the head of the FBI. If the acting Attorney General had not shown up with a wittness would they have murdered Ashcroft?

sgtdmski · 07-30-2007, 07:36 PM

You know what folks, as photographer nothing sucks more than seeing your work being represented as the work of someone else. I have several well-known photos here in town, recently I saw one of my photos being credited to someone else. My intellectual property was stolen. Unfortunately, the actual theft had never occurred. Why, the reason being is that the photo was still at the copiers. Luckily for me the person was never able to use my work, they were caught ahead of time. Unluckily for me, what this person did was not a crime. The work was never published, hence under the law, no crime. If this new amendment was added, then this would have been a crime.

My lawyer tells me that since there was no crime and no publishing of the work, I have no civil case. Also, the police were not able to confiscate the work. So who is to say that this individual will not try to do the same somewhere else.

While I do not agree with all points of this bill, I am a big fan of protecting intellectual property, especially my own, and hope that the law be updated for those who attempt to steal it.

dmk

winston53660 · 07-30-2007, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tadpole256

Tech news blog - Gonzales proposes new crime: "Attempted" copyright infringement | CNET News.com

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.

Can anyone seriously support this administration anymore?

Gonzo is full of shit. I am one of the artist and he does not represent me. He represents Time Warner NOT ME. Tell him to shove it up his ass.

hkbajwa · 07-31-2007, 06:06 AM

I think it is absolutely insane to feel entitled to convict somebody of a crime before the crime is committed.

From there it is just a hop and skip to imprisoning people because the police has a "gut feeling" somebody is about to commit a crime.

My perception of justice demands that people can only be tried for they HAVE done.. not for what they MIGHT do in the future.

I mean how the hell can you possibly justify any arrest without a crime??

COnsidering how protective of your freedom and civil liberties the US public is, i cannot for the life of me understand how such flagrant violation of the principles of justice isn't scaring the hell outta people.

The principle of "pre-emptive strike" is just as ridiculous in civil matters as it is in international politics..

Tragic...

sgtdmski · 08-09-2007, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hkbajwa

I think it is absolutely insane to feel entitled to convict somebody of a crime before the crime is committed.

From there it is just a hop and skip to imprisoning people because the police has a "gut feeling" somebody is about to commit a crime.

My perception of justice demands that people can only be tried for they HAVE done.. not for what they MIGHT do in the future.

I mean how the hell can you possibly justify any arrest without a crime??

COnsidering how protective of your freedom and civil liberties the US public is, i cannot for the life of me understand how such flagrant violation of the principles of justice isn't scaring the hell outta people.

The principle of "pre-emptive strike" is just as ridiculous in civil matters as it is in international politics..

Tragic...

What about my case??? Someone took my work and tried to pass it off as their own. Because I was notified before it was published and I challenged the individual, he was unable to publish the work in question. Correct me if I am wrong, this individual attempted to steal my work and pass it off as his own, because he was unsuccessful, this it not a crime.

Not if you ask me. This person is a theif, plain and simple.

dmk

hkbajwa · 08-10-2007, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

What about my case??? Someone took my work and tried to pass it off as their own. Because I was notified before it was published and I challenged the individual, he was unable to publish the work in question. Correct me if I am wrong, this individual attempted to steal my work and pass it off as his own, because he was unsuccessful, this it not a crime.

Not if you ask me. This person is a theif, plain and simple.

dmk

I certainly understand how you feel. I'm a creative manager at an advertizing firm and plagiarism is my enemy too. However i would still never feel justified in arresting or punishing a person BEFORE he actually made any profit off my ideas.

The basic principle of justice does not allow humans to judge other humans' INTENTION. They are only qualified to judge and pass sentence on acts already committed. What this man did may be termed an offence from the point that he tried to sell the pictures and make a profit. But that is a clear case of piracy as he had already acquired the pictures and made a verifiable attempt to profit from it. I am surprised that he can't be charged with that under existing legislation.

However that is a far cry from arresting and sentencing people because the authorities THINK he MIGHT profit from it.. even though he may not have made any actual moves towards such a thing yet.