Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Government The Courts News Politics Your Rights Online

Congress Pressures DoJ With PIRATE Part II 217

Anonymous Pirate writes "Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) have re-introduced the 'PIRATE Act' (pdf) to Congress. According to Ars Technica, the purpose of this act is to get the DoJ to go after individual copyright infringers. It would allow the Department of Justice to bring civil lawsuits instead of criminal ones so that they would be able to prosecute copyright infringers with only a minimal burden of proof, rather than the heavier burden required for criminal prosecution." Took a long time to do a sequel; we first talked about this proposal quite some time ago.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Congress Pressures DoJ With PIRATE Part II

Comments Filter:
  • While IANAL, I've never heard of the state bringing a civil suit against an individual citizen. Does that ever even happen?

    • by gravesb ( 967413 )
      I think that, for instance, EPA can bring suits against people, but more often corporations.
      • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Elemenope ( 905108 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @09:13AM (#21293913)

        That makes sense, but in a case like this, how could the state even have standing to sue? It's not like they are the copyright holder. With a polluting corporation, the state could argue that the offender is damaging the public commons, and thus demonstrate harm; where is the harm to the state involved in one person making a copy of a book, movie, or song, or in helping another to do so?

        • Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by shystershep ( 643874 ) * <bdshepherd.gmail@com> on Friday November 09, 2007 @09:44AM (#21294221) Homepage Journal
          It's a statute. If it says the DoJ has standing, then it has standing. Unfortunately, it doesn't have to make sense.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by TheSpoom ( 715771 ) *
          It doesn't matter.

          Follow the trail. This act is being brought forward by congressmen bought by lobbyists, this time the **AA. They want this bill passed so that the government can end up doing their work for them.

          Basically, so they can force the government into paying for their own lawsuits, and complain when they feel not enough people are being "prosecuted".

          This seems transparently corrupt to me, but I would imagine they're able to pull the wool over on others because of the catchy name.

          Well, at least I
          • > Follow the trail. This act is being brought forward by congressmen bought by lobbyists, this time the **AA. They want this bill passed so that the government can end up doing their work for them."

            Elections are coming up in a year ...

            > "Well, at least I'm Canadian."

            So you have to stick your 2.1 cents in :-) Maybe they should be lobbying Canadians - more "buck for the bang".

    • by faloi ( 738831 )
      It happens, but I think it's pretty rare (IANAL either). And usually for something pretty major, like to try to remove someone from office [nctimes.com].
    • While IANAL, I've never heard of the state bringing a civil suit against an individual citizen. Does that ever even happen?

      Also not a lawyer...but I can't possibly see how the state could bring a civil suit since it's not the aggrieved party. How is the state damaged? Please tell me they're not going to try some dumb thing like lost tax revenue from the RIAA's sales that didn't occur. Leahy's comments certainly suggest it:

      "Copyright infringement silently drains America's economy and undermines the talen

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Standing is an artificial object: it is created by law, and needn't correspond with anyone's intuitions about who has the right to complain. While standing exists in a highly limited capacity for non-statutory claims, almost 100% of claims which can be filed in court (criminal or civil) have their issues of standing defined by statute.

        If the Legislature passes a law creating standing for the DOJ in civil cases such as this, then standing exists. Of course, like all laws, such a law could be challenged
        • Standing is an artificial object: it is created by law, and needn't correspond with anyone's intuitions about who has the right to complain. While standing exists in a highly limited capacity for non-statutory claims, almost 100% of claims which can be filed in court (criminal or civil) have their issues of standing defined by statute.

          OK. So the state wins, no problem. What's the judgement, $1, since they weren't harmed?

          Again, I realize I'm not a lawyer and am well out of my depth, but this just doesn't

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by encoderer ( 1060616 )
        There is an argument to be made that rampant infringement DOES hurt our economy and society as a whole. If infringment deterred real artists, etc, all of US (and thus World) Culture would be negatively affected, although we wouldn't ever know what we're missing.

        Let's just be real, here.. I'd challenge anyone here to claim that they've NEVER infringed on a copyright. We've all done it. I was a Senior in High School when Napster reached its apex. I've probably downloaded 3-4 thousand songs from P2P networks.
  • Oh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Matt867 ( 1184557 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @08:50AM (#21293669)
    Oh, it looks like someone is tired of losing court cases due to the fact that they don't have ANY proof. It's a good thing they can afford their own senators.
    • Well, to be fair to the Senators, most digital copyright infringers do not make large campaign contributions.
  • I second guessed myself before I left-clicked into this page. *Scared of Amazon's Patent*
  • Screw that (Score:2, Insightful)

    by KDR_11k ( 778916 )
    There's a reason civil lawsuits are separate from criminal trials.

    Besides, why the hell should the DoJ, a government institution, police what happens between other people, shouldn't only the "victim" be allowed to file a lawsuit over this? Hell, how does the govt even knopw when the copyright hlder actually wants a lawsuit? Most holders like keeping fan projects in a legal grey zone of implicit permission which lets them C&D the project at will but doesn't require them to shut it down before they really
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Dunbal ( 464142 )
      why the hell should the DoJ, a government institution, police what happens between other people

            Buried deep inside the bill is a paragraph that changes the name of the "Department of Justice" to "The Ministry of Love".
  • ...having the *AAs' using questionably-legal tactics wasn't enough. Now we're gonna have the Feds sniffing around anyone using bandwidth or "teh 3v1lz" bittorrent? Prepare for more grannies, dead people and those with no computer to get dragged through the legal 7th level of Hades.

    Strat
  • EFF (Score:4, Insightful)

    by faloi ( 738831 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @08:52AM (#21293687)
    Sounds like a good time to make sure you've donated what you can to the EFF [eff.org]. The big fear, obviously, is that the RIAA will get to define what constitutes infringement, and suddenly you can't rip CD's to your MP3 player anymore [boingboing.net].
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by elhondo ( 545224 )
      It's important to remember that the EFF can help you when the fight gets to court, but doesn't necessarily help with the prevention of bad laws in the first place. http://www.ipaction.org/ [ipaction.org] May be a better site to visit, if you want to influence legislators before they pass laws.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by CodeBuster ( 516420 )
        but doesn't necessarily help with the prevention of bad laws in the first place

        The EFF also engages in lobbying, as do the professional lobbying firms hired by the MAFIAA and other corporations, only this time the lobbying is being done on behalf of the people. In fact, I have contributed several hundred dollars to them over the years to support just these types of activities. It is an unfortunate truth in American society that if you want good laws (or a better defense against bad ones) then you have t
    • EFF and Leahy (Score:3, Interesting)

      by argent ( 18001 )
      Let's hope the EFF is prepared to go after one of the "good guys". They've got a relationship with Leahy, and they've lionized him in the past, but now it's time to call in their markers.
  • Fantastic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cyphertube ( 62291 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @08:55AM (#21293711) Homepage Journal
    Well, this is a bad idea....

    Mostly because, well, then we have the government pursuing civil litigation on behalf of corporations. Are we then going to have the copyright holders pay for the cost, or will this be another free federal benefit on behalf of lobbyists?

    Moreover, is the DoJ going to do this fairly? Will they contact the copyright holder to make sure that there isn't a license and that there is a desire to go after the person? Moreover, if someone steals my work as an individual, will the DoJ treat it equal with Microsoft, the RIAA, or the MPAA?

    If not, then, well, please vote Leahy, etc. out of office.
  • by blcamp ( 211756 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @08:55AM (#21293719) Homepage

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 09, 2007 @09:28AM (#21294059)
      Lessig was hinting at this last week. We are raising a revolutionary generation (which is probably a good thing in the end because the current generation are a useless lazy bunch who will never affect change).

      The more corporations hijack the legal system, and the more absurd the laws become the greater the "corrosive" (in Lessigs words) the effect. The rule of law has ceased to be an instrument to serve the people. That is a pretty fucking serious situation if you think about it. We have a generation of people who were born criminals and have lived all their life so far as criminals while doing nothing wrong (ethically, morally, humanly).
      Without fundamental respect for law we have nothing to look forward to but anarchy, civil unrest and violent conflict. So it is up to citizens to stop the corporations before they undermine society. Every useless pice of shit you buy from Wallmart, Disney and Sony is just feeding the beast, stop doing it NOW, you are part of the problem.
    • by sm62704 ( 957197 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @10:01AM (#21294423) Journal
      I told this story yesterday [slashdot.org] but it bears repeating (or at least being linked to), as you no longer have any 4th amendment rights. At least, apparently, I don't. My 4th amendment rights against physical unwarranted search were violated twice last year, once on the day we remember those who died defending the Constitution, and as I said in the linked comment I'm a 55 year old white guy. I can't imagine what it would be like to be a 22 year old black guy.

      -mcgrew [kuro5hin.org]

      PS- Funny, the comment, in reply to someone who mentioned the 4th amendment in a story about the EFF, was modded "offtopic". Seems some corrupt police officers and corrupt legislators have mod points. No matter, I have karma to burn; mod me any damned way you want.
  • by beavis88 ( 25983 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @08:56AM (#21293727)
    Senator Leahy, I used to respect you as a person and as a Senator, and value your dedicated service to the State of Vermont. Today, it is clear to me that you need to be put out to pasture.
    • by RandoX ( 828285 )
      ...says the Great Cornholio... :)
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Billosaur ( 927319 ) *

      When I lived in Vermont as a kid, he was someone to look up to. He's been a Senator for a very long time, and I believe his judgment on a great number of issues has been without reproach. This, however, appears to be a case where he is out of his league. I also find it disturbing given some information from his Wikipedia entry:

      In 2004 Senator Leahy was awarded the Electronic Privacy Information Center's Champion of Freedom Award for efforts in information privacy and open government.

      So on the one hand he's trying to champion the people's cause. On the other hand:

      In March, 2004, Leahy and Orrin Hatch introduced the Pirate Act backed by the RIAA as part of an on-going crusade against Internet file sharing.

      In July, 2004, Leahy and Orrin Hatch introduced the INDUCE Act aimed at combating copyright infringement.

  • Obvious (Score:2, Insightful)

    Well, at least we know what employer Mr. Leahy and Mr. Cornyn really work for.
  • by downix ( 84795 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @09:00AM (#21293773) Homepage
    Upon this passage, it would mean that the government by the people and for the people had turned it's backs on the people.
  • Not enough crime? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sjs132 ( 631745 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @09:06AM (#21293829) Homepage Journal
    What, we don't have enough crime for the feds to track and work on? Now we gotta make busy work up by letting them do "civil" suits for RIAA? How much to buy a seat in washington today? How about we work on our F#CKIN6 Boards and Drugs and REAL criminal cases, and THEN if we have time at the end of the year worry about "he said/she said" civil cases. This is SAD that our government is so blatently BOUGHT by the corporations today.

    I used to consider myself a republican until I realized that BOTH sides are essentually the same and will abuse their power in an instant to take what is not theirs and line their own pockets to keep power. This is getting REAL OLD... I now consider myself a libritarian, but if it keeps going the way it is, I may have to consider myself a revolutionist and start dumping tea. I already gave up Music and movies because of the RIAA and the such... (Along with the fact that their hasn't been anything good to hear/see in a number of years.) I hoped they would get the message but they don't. They just keep shoveling more sh*t into our graves... Anyone for a CD Tea Party? Real Pirates can steal boxes of CD's and we pick a good harbor to dump them into.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ScaryMonkey ( 886119 )
      I agree with almost all of your post, I just had to take issue with your lumping "Drugs" in with "REAL criminal cases" The so-called "War on Drugs" was just the government's previous smokescreen for gradually eroding the people's rights. It's rather disturbing to hear someone clearly see through the "War on Piracy" nonsense but then reflexively invoke the phantom menace of an earlier era as the REAL bogeyman.

      IMHO the greatest threat to our peace and freedom is not criminals at all; Criminals may hurt
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sm62704 ( 957197 )
      How about we work on our F#CKIN6 Boards and Drugs and REAL criminal cases

      How about we legalize the broads and drugs (and gambling and other victimless "crimes"), as the war on (some) drugs (and the prostitutes who are addicted to them) are what has caused the constitution to be meaningless. [slashdot.org] Then the cops would have a little more time to go after violent people, and more room in the prisons to hold them.

      A friend of mine was shot and killed by an armed robber a couple of decades back. The killer spent two yea
  • by MarkusQ ( 450076 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @09:13AM (#21293911) Journal

    So let me get this straight: we can't even get a commitment from this DOJ to enforce to enforce things like the laws against torture or the constitutional authority of congress to conduct oversight into the actions of the executive branch, trust them not to use their power for partisan purposes, or even to hire qualified people who graduated from real law schools, but we're going to let them start filing civil suits on behalf of plaintiffs who (generally) could well afford to file for themselves, and would, if they had a shred of merit?

    Great. That's just great.

    --MarkusQ

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Don't you love America, you socialist, treasonous liberal? We need torture to conduct our missions abroad! Why do you hate the soldiers so much--they're sacrificing so you can have your freedom of speech to complain about them! If people like you ran the country, we'd be Muslims by now!!! Why do you hate God so much?

      Well, that's the BS I've been hearing from the war-mongers.
  • by inject_hotmail.com ( 843637 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @09:15AM (#21293919)
    I think that this will essentially fall upon deaf ears. It'll go on the books, and be used a couple times -- maybe.

    The problem with distributed infringement is that it takes such a large amount of resources to prosecute a single person, with the prospect of retribution (after investigation, court, and accounting costs) of far less than a monetarily positive result. They might be gung-ho at first to set examples, but once they realize that they've already sucked every last dollar out of 95% of all citizens by way of taxes, they will quickly learn that there's no more money at the bottom of the money well (prosecute counterfeit distributors, not their consumers!). Seriously, does congress or the DoJ believe that we have bundles of cash ready to hand over like they do? (Forgive this digression, but that's actually one of the biggest problems in our society. The people with oodles of money make social policy, and they think that everyone else lives like them -- a suburban household income of $200,000 a year or more...but only in a situation like this would this legislation be tabled in the first place)

    The end result isn't going to be deterrence. Everyone in the electronic community will do the equivalent of standing around the train wreck staring and gasping "Oh my god, is there no humanity", for five minutes and carry on as normal (downloading and buying $5 DVDs). The counterfeit vendors will continue to pander their crap, and people will continue to buy it. The government will (in the publics eye) be scrambling and grasping for every last possible stranglehold on its citizens they've be aiming for, for the last 7 years.

    How can they believe that persecuting their citizens is a good idea?

    If we go a little deeper into the problem, you might agree with me that it's sociological in nature and fairly inevitable and inexorable. Can I get a comment from any sociologists?
  • by thisissilly ( 676875 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @09:22AM (#21294001)
    This is because companies don't want to foot the bill for lawsuits, they'd rather have it funded by taxpayers. Of course, the DOJ eats this up, because then they get to demand more money to hire more people for all the investigations and prosecutions they'd be doing, and claim to be "tough on crime". People wouldn't be able to point out the RIAA's actions, because it would be the government going after them.

    I don't like the idea of the government getting involved in civil suits on behalf of a third party. What's next, investigating people for adulterous behavior, and then filing divorce proceedings on the spouse's behalf?
    • by ppanon ( 16583 )
      Nope, it's worse than that. The RIAA companies realize that their lawsuit strategy isn't working. First they are starting to encounter some real push back because they've been very sloppy and it's only a matter of time before somebody sets a precedent in court that they won't be happy with. Second, it's a lot harder to sue the government for malicious prosecution, and the government has even more tools at its disposal for information gathering with carnivore and the PATRIOT act.
  • Here (Tha'ts Costa Rica) I thought for a long time there were no or few copyright laws... as most rental DVDs seem to be copies, and all the video-game stores in the malls sell pirated games and chipped consoles. It's great as a consumer... but I wondered why. It's not a lawless country, after all.

    The real issue appears to be that the authorities simply don't have time to go chasing copyright laws.

    If you, as a copyright holder, want to come down here and file some court papers.... you can take peopel to c
  • Mod me redundant (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sm62704 ( 957197 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @09:29AM (#21294065) Journal
    Because I've said it before and I'll say it again: we have the best governmnet money can buy.

    -mcgrew [mcgrew.info]
  • The RIAA has found its own team of lawyers is no match for individual citizens with no legal resources whatsoever, and it therefore needs to bring in the terrible (as in "Ivan the") power of the state to defeat them. If that doesn't work, what is the poor RIAA going to do then?
  • When Congressmembers (like Leahy, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee) tell you they're too busy "working on the people's business" to impeach guilty officials, they're talking about creating, promoting and passing laws like PIRATE II.

    Priorities.
  • Not only do they have outrageous penalties written into civil law, but now they want to get the taxpayer to pay for their larcenous lawsuits? I think we need to recognise that the closest thing to real piracy in this situation is what the RIAA is doing. Not only have they been granted letters of marque by the US government to exact punishment in civil suits, but now they're getting the government to pay for it. All that remains would be for George II to start handing out knighthoods (after all, it worked for Francis Drake).
  • What is it with Americans and Acronyms? Is it absolutely necessary for nigh every single act, invention, process or term to have an acronym, and furthermore, for that acronym to become its de facto name?

    Sometimes, it's not so bad, e.g. RADAR, HTML. But making, PATRIOT or PIRATE or INDUCE the actual name of your legal bills makes a joke out of the entire legislative process. Must everything become a marketing ploy?
    • Making a joke of the legislative process, that is. :(
    • by dave420 ( 699308 )
      Some people are stupid. They think "Oh! It's called PATRIOT, so anyone who thinks it's a bad idea is obviously not a patriot!". They don't realise that the name has nothing to do with the legislation. It's all about PR, looking good, and getting paid. The legislators want their jobs so they can get paid. It's a massive conflict of interest, and it's here to stay, until real politicians are found. Hehehe.
    • Sometimes, it's not so bad, e.g. RADAR, HTML. But making, PATRIOT or PIRATE or INDUCE the actual name of your legal bills makes a joke out of the entire legislative process. Must everything become a marketing ploy?

      It makes it easier to spin so they can sell it to the electorate. Joe Sixpack isn't going to read these bills and call his Congresscritter, he'll glance at the name, think 'This is a Good Thing' like the spin doctors want him to, and go his merry way, not knowing that Good Thing just made him p

  • by WPIDalamar ( 122110 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @10:14AM (#21294567) Homepage
    I just wrote both of my Senators urging them to vote against this if and when it comes time for a senate vote. I urge everyone else to do the same.

    The system can't work without feedback from citizens.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by celle ( 906675 )
      There is feedback, it's called a lynching. We need to bring back necktie parties for public officials.
  • by QCompson ( 675963 ) on Friday November 09, 2007 @10:44AM (#21294999)
    From the Ars article:

    The Department would no doubt rather be busting gangsters, child molesters, and even actual counterfeiting rings, but it seems like some members of Congress are intent on pressing Justice to get involved in the P2P lawsuit game...
    I highly doubt that the Department of Justice would rather be investigating actual crimes (in which people are actually harmed). The DoJ, the FBI, and most other law enforcement agencies seem to go after whatever "criminal issue" is the easiest to investigate and whatever will garner the most sensationalist headlines. Hence the rise in all of these sting operations involving drugs and the "to catch a predator" type sitations where citizens are arrested based on the theory that they would likely harm someone in the future (sure, the 14 year old girl is really a 45 year old cop, but there could be a real 14 year old girl who entices this guy over to her house sometime in the future).

    It's no wonder that law enforcement agencies are all jumping at the chance to investigate myspace and facebook "criminal activity". It's a lot easier to sit at your desk and surf the web all day instead of being out on the street and arresting people who are actually harming others (violent acts, robbery, rape, etc.).
  • Lest just stop all this silly incremental nonsence and jump to the 'end game': Make everyone in the country a criminal, convict them via proxy of something, then strip whatever rights they had as a citizen away since they are now convicted felons and dont get any rights.

    Then we can go ahead and have the 2nd revolution and get this segment of the 'civilization cycle' over with.
  • (ooooh, nifty movie title)

    Having lowered the bar in evidentiary burdens against copyright infringers by shifting prosecution into the civil court system, I think the obvious next logical step is to declare content piracy* as a terrorist act, eliminating the requirement for evidence entirely!

    *not my phrase, not my idea, I'm just sayin' it like the pigopolists would.

  • "Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) have re-introduced the 'PIRATE Act' (pdf) to Congress. According to Ars Technica, the purpose of this act is to get the DoJ to go after individual copyright infringers. It would allow the Department of Justice to bring civil lawsuits instead of criminal ones so that they would be able to prosecute copyright infringers with only a minimal burden of proof, rather than the heavier burden required for criminal prosecution."

    Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is making more sense. It wasn't high seas pirates they were referring to, rather wasteful acts of congress called PIRATE whose resources and manpower energies could have been used to to fight global warming instead, thus becoming correlated with its rise.

  • The two SCOTUS decisions that destroyed the democratic United States government:

    1. Decision that corporations were individuals, same as we meat puppets, endowed by their creator with the right to life, liberty, and the freedom of speech. A decision, BTW, that never happened, as it was an interpretation by a SC clerk, not a Justice, that was seized on by the Guilded Age corporations as the institutionalization of their organizations as immortal citizens.

    2. 1990s: decision by SCOTUS that political donations w
  • What a tremendous fucking waste of our country's resources. How about we go after actual CRIMINALS, rather than copyright violators? You know... stuff that actually MATTERS?
  • And corporate lobbyist are no longer writing legislation /sarc
  • I read the headline as, "Congress Pleasures DoJ With PRIVATE Part II."

    Thought I was on the wrong website for a second.

If you steal from one author it's plagiarism; if you steal from many it's research. -- Wilson Mizner

Working...