Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[eric stasik]

The US Congress has allocated money towards the creation of a federal copyright enforcement czar.

Currently, responsibility for enforcement of intellectual-property law is divided among a range of agencies including the Library of Congress, the Justice and State departments and the US Trade Representative.

The new position will  "put some cohesion into the federal effort, said one Senate Appropriations Committee aide."

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,39174753,00.htm

[JimIvey]

Interesting.  I know some here are supportive of the complete supremacy of intellectual property rights over all else, but I find it rather interesting that we know have a "war on copyright infringement" that's beginning to rival the "war on drugs".  Where's the war on patent infringement or the war on trademark infringement or on trade secret infringement?  While it's at least plausible that the war on drugs benefits the public (although much of the evidence suggests otherwise), there appears to be little, if any, plausible benefit to the public on the war for copyrights.

A couple years ago, it was noted that we had reached a historical high-water mark in terms of the rights afforded a copyright holder.  Yet the tide continues to rise.

Bearing in mind that all forms of intellectual property law are to eventually benefit the public, I wonder if much -- if anything -- is left to the public in the current state of copyright law.

[Isaac]

I would note that a budget of 2 million dollars seems woefully
inadequate for doing anything meaningful, particularly if a
primary goal is protection of IP abroad.

I'd also note that this comes on the heels of the stalling out
of legislation to allow the government to pursue civil copyright
infringement suits.

Still, isn't it fairly common for copyright infringement to
be a criminal rather purely civil concern in countries other
than the US?

[JimIvey]

Still, isn't it fairly common for copyright infringement to
be a criminal rather purely civil concern in countries other
than the US?

Interesting point.  I wonder what it is about copyrights that makes it the only candidate for criminal status rather than purely a civil cause of action.  To me, criminal punishment for IP infringement is a little too reminiscent of debtors' prisons that have long been done away with.

I think the answer lies in something I heard with respect to the Eldridge case -- something along the lines of ... in the US Supreme Court, when has right prevailed over all the money in the world?  Usually, those two aren't pitted against one another, but when they do, there's a clear winner.

What you have in copyrights that I don't really see anywhere else (yet) is copyrights and little else pooled together into an extremely profitable business venture (e.g., the RIAA members).  You have some very very wealthy people and institutions with very strong interest in strong copyright protection.  And lobbying of Congress has been shown time and time again to be very profitable.

There are signs of a similar evolution in patents where some groups are buying up under-utilized and under-enforced patents with an eye toward aggressive enforcement of patent portfolios with little or no other business model.  If they ever get big enough, you'd better believe you'll see some heavy lobbying for very very strict enforcement of patents with a lot of pro-patentholder legislation.  

I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but it would be significantly different from what we have now.  And, if the difference appears to be directly resulting from a large concentration of money in the hands of a few organizations, you have to ask yourself if other constituencies and the public at large really benefit as much as they ought to.  

As usual, I don't have the answers, only questions.