Return of the PIRATE Act
p2pnet news | Freedom:- The PIRATE Act, in 2004 described by the EFF as, “yet another attempt to make taxpayers fund the misguided war on file sharing,” is back.
You’d think companies which make things would be falling over backwards trying to work with would-be customers, wouldn’t you?
But not the major music labels and movie studios.
Instead, they’ve created an atmosphere of bitter enmity and hatred between themselves and people they expect to keep them fat and happy.
In 2004, for example, along came the bought-and-paid-for Hatch-Leahy PIRATE Act, designed to to “provide the Department of Justice with tools to combat the rampant copyright piracy facilitated by peer-to-peer filesharing software”.
“The bill would allow the government to file civil copyright lawsuits in addition to criminal prosecutions, dramatically lowering the burden of proof and adding to the thousands of suits already filed by record companies,” said the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) at the time, going on:
“It would also force the American public to pay the legal bills of foreign record companies like Bertelsmann, Vivendi Universal, EMI, and Sony. Meanwhile, not a penny from the lawsuits goes to the artists.”
Behind it were Orrin ‘Terminator’ Hatch and senator Patrick Leahy.
Hatch has vanished to wherever Hollywood-flavoured politicos go, but Leahy is still around and together with senator John Cornyn, yesterday introduced a bill that would, “unleash the world’s largest law firm on Internet pirates,” says CNET News.
The PIRATE Act, re-booted.
“It would authorize the Justice Department to file civil lawsuits against people engaged in peer-to-peer copyright infringement – with the proceeds going to the company or person who owns the copyright.”
The story goes on:
The relative ease of winning civil cases compared to criminal prosecutions is one big reason why the RIAA and MPAA adore the Pirate Act, called the Intellectual Property Enforcement Act in its latest incarnation. The burden of proof is lower, and a civil defendant has far fewer rights under the law.
Ask Jammie Thomas or Tanya Andersen or Patti Santangelo or Marie Lindor or Rae-Jay Schwartz, or any of the other 30,000 or so very ordinary American men, women and children who somehow have to find the financial and legal resources to prove themselves innocent of the phony ‘mass distribution’ charges levelled at them by Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG’s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America).
CNET says the new iteration of the Pirate Act, in addition to civil enforcement, also:
- Creates an “operational unit” of at least 10 FBI agents to investigate intellectual property offenses. It requires the Justice Department to assign a federal prosecutor to Hong Kong and Budapest, Hungary, “to assist in the coordination of the enforcement of intellectual property laws” and allocates $12 million per year.
- Awards $20 million per year in additional funding to the FBI and the Justice Department’s criminal division to investigate computer crimes.
- Amends existing law dealing with criminal forfeiture. Says that “any property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part to commit or facilitate the commission” of certain intellectual property offenses is subject to forfeiture. Civil forfeiture is also included. This expands on a recent counterfeit goods-related law.
Stay tuned.
Also See:
Orrin ‘Terminator’ Hatch – Hatch`s Kill P2P Bill is nigh, May 26, 2004
CNET News – Senators want Justice Department to sue P2P pirates, November 7, 2007
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for the download, and here for details. Click here or here to learn how to by-pass censorship in your area.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
GO AFTER THE REAL CRIMINALS
I would like an answer from these half witted congressmen: Who goes after the real criminals:
1. The record companies that without songwriter authorization and without paying any royalties make records (for profit).
2. The record companies that steal royalties from artists with their con artist accounting (or no accounting at all).
3. The music publishers that claim ownership of public domain works? Just look up “Star spangled banner” at the performance rights organizations repertoire. It has hundreds of copyright claimants.
3. The music publishers that simply steal songs from songwriters through various scams.
For God’s sake, go after the real criminals.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Forfeiture is unconstitutional as it is, and attempting to subject private property to forfeiture for a civil action is beyond unconstitutional in nature. HINT: FORFEITURE MEANS THEY CAN TAKE YOUR PROPERTY AWAY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AND YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH YEARS OF COURT PROCEDURE TO GET IT BACK, EVEN IF YOU ARE FOUND TOTALLY INNOCENT. THEY AUCTION YOUR STUFF OFF AND KEEP THE PROCEEDS.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
OK, so what can be done about this?
It evidently passed the Senate in the past, but not the House. Why was that?
November 9th, 2007 at 1:21 am
Because bribes exist everywhere over there… cmon you know its true
November 9th, 2007 at 8:33 am
Congress these days seems to be incapable of doing much of anything. I
don’t see this getting very far, much like the last time.
And it will have zero deterrence effect.
November 9th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Continue to make any type of crappy law you want RIAA/MPAA piece of crap. It will only promote carnages and destructions. Your destructions!
November 13th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
What is happening to the constitution and your freedoms is coming out of washington, globule corporations through special
interest are running the United States Government. They have screwed up the copyright time frame and the DMCA has removed all your rights to enjoy the artist music on you terms. Do not vote the same people back in office, keep changing the players and that makes it harder for special interest to function. Term limits would be best but you can bet that want happen.Benjamin Franklin long ago warned against rhetoric that demands trading individual rights for corporate security.