Righthaven Case Gets Even More Bizarre: CEO Files Statement About How Righthaven's Own Lawyer Won't Respond To Him

New Bill Seeks To Let DHS Agents Coordinate More With Private Companies In Seizing Property (Like Domains)

from the this-again dept

Wed, Mar 28th 2012 4:19pm — Mike Masnick

The federal government seems to have a real blindness for the fact that companies given government-granted monopoly privileges in the form of trademarks, copyrights and patents might seek to abuse those rights beyond what is reasonably allowed. Instead, they seem to assume that private companies will always properly limit any efforts to use those laws against true violators. Of course, we know that's not true, and that such monopoly holders regularly abuse the laws to block or shut down competitive activity or activity that the IP holder just doesn't like. And yet, the government continues to ignore that this happens. Last year, the White House put forth a bunch of suggested changes to IP law, some of which showed up in SOPA.

One of the ones that didn't show up in SOPA has now made its way into a new legislative proposal, H.R. 4216: Foreign Counterfeit Prevention Act, introduced by Reps. Ted Poe and Steve Chabot. The text of the bill seems simple enough. It changes 18 USC 1905, which currently forbids federal officials from revealing to private parties' information that they come across during investigations. The new bill seeks to make an exception to that: allowing Homeland Security/Customs & Border Patrol agents to share pre-seizure info or products with trademark and copyright holders.

Now, on its face, this might make sense. It's a way for CBP officials to ask copyright and trademark holders if their rights are being abused by potentially infringing products. But, as we noted when the White House first asked for this law, this hasn't always worked out so well in the past, in part because copyright and trademark holders are often not particularly truthful when asked if they infringe -- and they rarely, if ever, give any thought to fair use or other legitimate uses of their copyrights and trademarks. In fact, one of the reasons why the federal government screwed up so badly in seizing Dajaz1 was because it relied on bad claims by the RIAA, who insisted that works that were not infringing were infringing. Organizations like the RIAA have little incentive to get these things right. And this bill encourages greater coordination with those private parties?

The simple fact is that infringement is determined not by the copyright or trademark holder, but through a court process and adversarial hearing. Having Homeland Security sharing more info with private companies seems like a situation that is ripe for abuse. We've already seen how Homeland Security sometimes appears to act as the the private police force of certain private companies. Are we sure that we really want to create a situation that encourages more such activities?

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: coordination, customs, dhs, private companies, seizures

20 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

MrWilson, 28 Mar 2012 @ 4:53pm

Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- rubberpants.com, 28 Mar 2012 @ 5:06pm
  
  Response to: MrWilson on Mar 28th, 2012 @ 4:53pm
  rootstrikers.org
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cosmicrat, 28 Mar 2012 @ 5:06pm

This is new?
I thought they were already doing this, Dajaz1 being just one example. You mean DHS is operating above the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2012 @ 5:42pm

There is a simple way to make this work...
Add the restrictions that 1. it has to be presented for the soul purpose of determining whether or not infringement has occurred, 2 in a court that makes the determination (like a Grand Jury) if there is infringement or not where 3. the IP holder testifies under penalty of perjury. That should do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2012 @ 5:43pm
  
  Re: There is a simple way to make this work...
  * sole
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Atkray (profile), 28 Mar 2012 @ 7:33pm
    
    Re: Re: There is a simple way to make this work...
    4. Any organization found providing inaccurate or false information loses the privilege. Forever.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2012 @ 8:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: There is a simple way to make this work...
      Nah. I said under penalty of perjury. In other words anyone found to be lying goes to jail.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2012 @ 8:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: There is a simple way to make this work...
        And if a corporation lies then who goes to jail?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ed C., 28 Mar 2012 @ 9:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is a simple way to make this work...
        A corporation is just a group of people. A person who commits perjury is still accountable.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2012 @ 9:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is a simple way to make this work...
        Big (U.S.) corporations usually get the high court treatment and they often benefit from limited liability ... when is the last time you've seen corporate executives jailed for doing something illegal (the Enron scandal?).
        
        ie: Look at the AT&T scam among many many other scams and illegal activity committed by corporations where no one gets sentenced to anything.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 28 Mar 2012 @ 5:44pm

At some point, other than a troll, could someone please explain to me how a counterfeit handbag or suit have a thing to do with national security? Or for that matter a flood of cheap illegal DVDs or CDs of Hollywood products have anything to do with national security?

Counterfeit money, sure, that does. But the United States already has the secret service for that. Fake aircraft parts for the military does but one would rationally think the military has the where with all to check that themselves and call in the necessary civilian law enforcement agencies if needs must.

Perhaps a cracking (I will NOT misuse the word hacking the way a lot of others do any longer!) of government computer networks would qualify but most of that seems self inflicted rather than a deliberate act of an outside party to date. But there ARE agencies that predate the DHS that already do that and have for decades. Just ask the FBI! On second thought, maybe not.

As there's no penalty for the *AA's to be honest about infringement or to check before complaining having a DHS act for them is nothing short of ridiculous. And I still want to know what it has to do with security. Not a thing that I can see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2012 @ 6:32pm
  
  Response to: TtfnJohn on Mar 28th, 2012 @ 5:44pm
  You mean how the hell is this anywhere close to DHS jurisdiction? We already have U.S. Customs for this. Oh wait what if there was a fake bomb in one of the handbags? Since it's possible, DHS has to be involved.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2012 @ 7:40pm
    
    Re: Response to: TtfnJohn on Mar 28th, 2012 @ 5:44pm
    DHS has cognizance over a number of agencies, as shown at:
    
    http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0644.shtm
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2012 @ 8:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Response to: TtfnJohn on Mar 28th, 2012 @ 5:44pm
      Of course. Because they really know how to oversee (ie manage) things properly.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2012 @ 7:22pm

it looks like it's time to rally the troops against the FCPA

H.R. 4216: Foreign Counterfeit Prevention Act
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kenichi tanaka, 29 Mar 2012 @ 5:26am

I'd like to see a private company try to take my property. They'd get an assfull of buckshot. Seize my property because of copyright and trademark BS? Let them try. I'd show them exactly what the 2nd Amendment means to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin (profile), 29 Mar 2012 @ 8:43am

Gopvernment is not a bloody business
Welcome to USA Inc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 29 Mar 2012 @ 6:30pm
  
  Re: Gopvernment is not a bloody business
  USA LLC. they get better protections for when they screw up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prozpleez, 30 Mar 2012 @ 9:43am

Watch the gap
This is a necessary step in the international effort to protect IP. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected we need to ensure that new channels for copyright infringement are not opened and created. Let's work to protect IP and come up with all encompassing legislation, formed by the input of all parties involved, to address this issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
joe, 26 Jun 2012 @ 5:48pm

Lets watch them
They are at it again, lets keep watching them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]