Senate Panel Approves Bill To Make The Justice Dep't Hollywood's Private Police Force
from the travesty-of-justice dept
We were just talking about how a huge number of public interest groups had explained to the Senate why the new Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act was a such terrible idea since it would add a Copyright Czar in the White House and let the FBI file civil charges against people caught infringing on copyrights. After all, there's simply no logical explanation for why the FBI should be propping up the obsolete business model of an industry that refuses to change with the market.However, it appears that public interest groups don't fund campaigns like the entertainment industry does. The Senate Judiciary Committee has gone ahead and approved moving the bill forward by a 14-4 margin, basically handing over Justice Department resources to Hollywood to protect its business model with no real justification.
The bill's sponsor, Sen. Patrick Leahy's explanation is pretty stunning in its ignorance:
"We all know that intellectual property makes up some of the most valuable, and most vulnerable, property we have. We need to do more to protect it from theft and abuse if we hope to continue being a world leader in innovation."Can someone send him a copy of Against Intellectual Monopoly so he can understand how nearly every part of that sentence is wrong. First off, intellectual property, despite the name, is not "property" at all. It's also not "vulnerable" except if you mean that there are better business models out there for dealing with. He gives no convincing reason why we should "protect" it, other than a factually untrue statement about "theft," when infringement and theft are two totally different things and should be dealt with in two totally different ways. Finally, studies have shown that the more "protected" IP is, the less innovation results, so his final clause is simply backwards. This bill will serve to limit American innovation, and open up more foreign innovation instead. But, as long as it means the RIAA doesn't need to innovate...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright czar, intellectual property, patrick leahy, senate
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Google
If there were ever a case to be made for antitrust it would be AGAINST the MPAA and RIAA. As mentioned however, the contributions by these organizations to these polluticians are staggering. They are the puppet masters where the PEOPLE should have control, not the corporations.
Very Sad Indeed for the sheeple. (myself included)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google
The JUSTICE DEPARTMENT is going after GOOGLE. Lahey is a senator, he is not in the justice department (which is run by Bush appointees and staffed, unconstitutionally, by Republican partisans). Lahey is on the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary committee is under the power of Congress and made up of elected representatives. The Justice Department is under the controlled by the Executive branch and made up of political appointees. The judiciary committee historically has had oversight duties regarding the justice department (which is essentially what this article is about), but they are not the same thing. It should be noted also that the Bush administration has continually questioned any oversight of their activities by congress as part of their belief that the executive should be all powerful and answerable to no one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google
Really? You said this;
“This is the same department scrutinizing Google ?”
No the department scrutinizing Google is the Department of Justice. This is a senate committee, they are NOT in fact the same department, no matter how many times or different ways you try to say they are.
“Clearly I have pointed out that BOTH parties are guilty of what you cast aspersions to . . . ”
No actually once again you haven’t, you can’t even come close. I gave you about 500 words just off the top of my head regarding the abuses and malfeasance of the Republican control government from 2000 to 2006. You gave me one senator and one bill and try to claim “their all the same”. Both parties did not lie to the America people to go to war, both parties did not refuse to stop the defrauding of California by Enron, both parties did not use homosexual prostitutes to pose as reporters to throw fake questions to the president, the leaders of both parties did not refuse to testify before the 911 commission . . . etc etc etc (again this is just stuff I thought of in a few seconds). You can try these “there all thieves” thing if you want and you can pretend to not be a republican if you don’t have the guts to stand up for what you “supposedly” believe in, but you pretending it doesn’t make it true.
Finally my agenda is for improving the country I love and I am not too cowardly to admit it or try to obfuscate it behind some illusion of independence. Frankly most admitted Republicans won’t work as hard as you to defend their party, I have certainly never seen an “independent” that would. I just don’t want people to be suckered into this “there all crooks” republican party spin after the last 8 years have shown quite clearly that some crooks are far more damaging to this country than others. They are not “all the same” and while I certainly don’t agree with everything any democratic politician does, Democrats are unquestioningly not “equally” responsible for the mess the country is in today. My question to you though is, when will you be honest about your agenda?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Google
I live in Illinois. A state completaly controlled by the Democrats and I can tell you this, I am not voting for a Democrat again in this coming election. I am a little screwed, seeing that I am very liberal, but these demigods of yours have failed me miserably.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google
I'm sorry you live in the fucked-up state of Illinois, but don't be such a fool as to paint all Democrats as bad, and all Republicans as good, simply because your governor is an asshole. The President and his cronies are assholes, too. But you'd happily go with more of the same from the federal government, because you're fed up with your state government.
I suggest that you've gotten the government you deserve, and based on your comments, you'll continue to get more of the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google
In what universe? The President is Republican, the Senate does not have enough opposition votes to override a Presidential veto or Republican filibusters. The only place where there is a clear democratic majority is in the House.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Google
Admittedly my wording was a bit vague in the Rest of the context, however, Once again you jump to one side of the argument. My point was... "Is this senator really proposing to put the DOJ as the czar of copyrights?" Apparently you could not read this.
Asking that question standalone does not conclude what you imply at all. I never said the DOJ Was the senate but nice try.
"“Clearly I have pointed out that BOTH parties are guilty of what you cast aspersions to . . . ”
No actually once again you haven’t, you can’t even come close."
Really ? When any bill is passed into law, are you saying that only one party has acted ? Clearly voting for the war was BOTH parties. Regardless of the majority. BOTH voted BOTH ways for and against. And in fact the rest of that little rant is hollow. YES BOTH parties are guilty of what you assert. You wish not to see that however.
You also like to sum up the history of our government by a guage of "the last 6-8" years. Sorry to say it's been going on loooooong before that.
I don't defend the republicans once in any of these threads except to say they both behave similarly. Slinging mud and ignoring the issues on real Americans minds.
I believe (as you do not) that both your and my points are to make this country better. There IS corruption in our government. On BOTH sides. The war was voted for on BOTH sides. You seem to want to only focus on the two parties. Perhaps thats as high as you can count. I, however, see the grey areas and variables as being vast between the two. Certainly on one issue I can appear liberal and on another extremely conservative. With so many issues at hand. How could you possibly label me (one person) as either specifically.
Your anger is apparent but you are not aiming at the right human here. Perhaps you should take your case/issues to ALL the representatives without bias ? hmmmmmmm ? Or, will they both ignore you, and continue to behave the same?
Remember, history repeats itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google
Well, no, he probably couldn't read that, since it's not what you wrote. You can try to deny it, but you wrote exactly this: "This is the same department scrutinizing Google ?" Please scroll up the page, and you'll see it for yourself.
"“Clearly I have pointed out that BOTH parties are guilty of what you cast aspersions to . . . ”
No actually once again you haven’t, you can’t even come close." Really ?
Yes, really. He's got you there again. You didn't point out anything, until you replied to the post pointing out that you hadn't pointed out anything.
Remember, history repeats itself.
History does not repeat itself, but people repeat the same mistakes. The quote is closer to "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well
However, now that this is to the senate as a whole, I will be writing a letter to my senator trying to explain how bad this is. I will send an email too so they get it sooner, but I am pretty sure they just trash emails because its so easy to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well
The fact many people seem oblivious and ready to accept the Government's word as Truth is astounding.
One thing the Founding Father's didn't foresee: Groupthink.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now were going to be spending our tax dollars on providing legal council for some of the richest people in the country while at the same time increasing the penalties and fines beyond some criminal felonies. For organizations who tell our legal system that they shouldn't be required to show proof in some of their cases?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paradigm shifts
I'm sure that the buggy whip manufacturers tried their damndest to keep the horseless carriages off the roads. But, alas, they were not successful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FBI WATCH
to view over 400 pages of crimes committed by FBI agents including committing voter fraud see
campusactivism.org
click on home
click on forum
scroll down to FBI WATCH
ALSO GOOGLE
LEONARD GATES VOTER FRAUD FBI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You mean...
It's depressing, how politicians seem to see the public that voted them into office as nothing more than *sswipes.
Time for a new (r)evolution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disgusting...
"We all know that intellectual property makes up some of the most valuable, and most vulnerable, property we have. We need to do more to protect it from theft and abuse if we hope to continue being a world leader in innovation."
Sen. Patrick Leahy has a VERY BIG problem with his standing on the issue of IP protection:
On one hand he wants to protect copyright holders, which is OK with me ( unless we are talking overprotection like 100 year copyright terms or throwing casual filesharers in jail etc.)
On the other hand he wants to make patent protection not available to small entities like independent inventors and tech startups (but still keep patents in place for his large corporate campaign contributors..)
What is this ?
A medical case of a split personality disorder which needs to be treated asap or another scumbag in Congress ?
I'll pick the latter...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disgusting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Disgusting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
being
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Predictions
Will then be sent to a joint House/Senate committee for reconciliation between it and the House of Representatives version. The differences between the two versions of the bill are generally minor.
Will eventually be passed by Congress with a relatively large majority voting in favor, and then sent to the President for signature.
Whoever is President (Bush, McCain, Obama) will sign bill, and without a "signing statement", and it will enter into force.
Will drive certain pundits into apoplexy, beginning a new round of "why this is wrong" speeches and articles.
Life will go on largely as before and the sky will not plunge to the ground.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Predictions
Or maybe you're just another RIAA/MPAA shill. If not, maybe you should apply for the job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Predictions
Don't you get it? It's people like that guy who make society better. The less we educate ourselves, the more we accept what we are told, the gov't/corporations get what they want, the people don't care, everybody wins!
Get with it Enid! Stop researching, stop educating and STOP CARING!!!
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In reply
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.
Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it.
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.
Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
-Thomas Jefferson.
And like TJ, I think that best thing that we can do as a nation is revolt against the government that is NOT representing us, the people. History repeats itself for a reason. And we need to stand up and say that we do not approve. And in response to all those that say "McCain is bad" or "Obama is bad" need to vote for the one person who is actually aware of how serious the situation in the White House is, and would actually do something about it, Ron Paul.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In reply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
> pretty stunning in its ignorance
If I didn't know better it would appear that the US govt simply hates the American people. But I know it's actually that they love their money and perks.
Unfortunately while these idiots are the modern day Nero. Newsflash Leahy: this economy is about to crash. You should be focusing on that rather than running a protection racket for Hollywood.
Leahy needs to be run out of office, plain and simple. Anyone supporting this legislation needs to go. But these clowns will be voted right back in, or we'll vote in whomever spins the best lines and does the best ads. It's a sad state of affairs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sadly, we can only vote out the wackos in our own states.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If this passes
I would hope they have better things to do with their time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP and Campaign Finance Reform
Politicians get that money from large companies, especially the entertainment industry.
Therefore, eventually all politicians belong to large industries, and a significant one is RIAA.
Expect this to change when we have campaign finance reform, and not before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mosser, Jaffe/Lerner, Boldrin/Levine (Against Intellectual Monopoly) penned articles relating to patent law. This act, whatever its merits/demerits, relates almost exclusively to copyright law. Since their articles relate to a wholly different segment of federal law, do you have citations to references relating to copyright law and its impact on "innovation"?
By the way, would it really be wise to send to Leahy a "patent" book when the matter at hand is "copyright"? Would not one dealing with copyright be more effective?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And others have addressed copyright. Who said we were only referring to those studies? But the point remains that the overall impact of both copyright and patent law work in similar manners. So it can be a good proxy.
Since their articles relate to a wholly different segment of federal law, do you have citations to references relating to copyright law and its impact on "innovation"?
Yup, there are plenty of such works by Lessig, Netanel, Perelman, Vaidhyanathan, Mason and others.
By the way, would it really be wise to send to Leahy a "patent" book when the matter at hand is "copyright"? Would not one dealing with copyright be more effective?
Once again, MLS, your words betray your ignorance. Against Intellectual Monopoly is not a "patent" book. It covers both patents and copyright in great detail.
Funny that you repeatedly condemn the book and its authors when you clearly have never bothered to read it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I have long followed Lessig's work, as well as, inter alia, that of Patry and Nimmer (both father and son). I am not familiar with the work of the others you mention. Lessig being what I would term the "advocate" of the group {Patry to some extent, but much of his and the Nimmers' work is directed to treatises), his work suffers from largely consisting of the historical development of copyright law, statutory provisions, and caselaw decisions. He writes as is typical of a lawyer, but without empirical data his advocary falls well short of the mark.
While it seems you believe otherwise, I am not an "IP" apologist who holds as a basic tenent that the success of our economy is causally related and dependent upon the existence of patent and copyright law. Quite the contrary. For example, long ago I noted that very little of the innovation to which patent laws could apply actually enters into the "patent system". Of course, it would be an entirely different discussion explaining why I believe this is so based upon my experience over a wide diversity of industries. Recall, I have practiced this aspect of IP law to a significant degree in both private law and in-house settings.
In view of the foregoing, and until such time as empirical data is presented concerning the economic impact of copyright law, I continue to hew to the view that "informing" Congress via AIM would almost certainly be an exercise in futility...what I term "swimming up a waterfall". Why? Because the RIAA/MPA/etc. enjoy
two distinct advantages. First, they have incredibly effective lobbies with ready access to the members of Congress and the Executive branch. Second, in the legislative debate it is their "numbers" that are on the table and that frame all discussions. To effectively counter their numbers counter-groups must effectively present their own numbers and the methodology used, something that to date has been virtually non-existent.
The development of copyright law in large measure depends upon the effective presentation of a "business case", and I am not at all sanguine this is something for which lawyers, and particularly those in academia, are well suited. Talk "business" and Congress may listen. Talk law and congressional eyeballs will "cage in the full upright position" (an aircraft term pertaining the HSIs).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, they do it with both patents and copyright. The book devotes significantly more than a single chapter to copyright.
In view of the foregoing, and until such time as empirical data is presented concerning the economic impact of copyright law, I continue to hew to the view that "informing" Congress via AIM would almost certainly be an exercise in futility...what I term "swimming up a waterfall". Why? Because the RIAA/MPA/etc. enjoy
Did you really think that I thought Congress reading that one book would change the way they dealt with these issues?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mine was a serious question for which I did not find an explanation in the book. Perhaps it is because the copy I read was the Acrobat file at the website. If you can direct me to the location in the file it would be appreciated.
And...No, of course one book (or even a hundred) does not change things. What does change things (besides campaign contributions), however, is definitive data, something that is sorely lacking in discussions before Congress concerning copyright issues by those who challenge groups like the MPAA and RIAA. Unless and until this latter group gets its act together and approaches this as a business issue and not a legal one, it is almost a given that the DCMA will be supplanted by the "DCMA+", Sonny Bono by "Sonny Bono+", etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One thing that has me puzzled about AIM is why Boldrin and Levine are claiming copyright in the book? I would have expected them to dedicate the book to the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Once again showing you haven't actually read the book. It's explained in the book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Current Leahy Position
As of 9/16/08 my very own Senator Leahy takes the position:
I have a suspicion that the response he is receiving is overwhelmingly negative, as suggested by the addition of the politician's favorite canard: I'm doing this to help you, yes you! save your money and your job. hehe :)
For further amusement, pick apart the good senator's public statement:
http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/200807/072408a.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]