Congress calls to arms against pirates

[wessman]

Yet another example of corporate money influencing politicians. The PEOPLE want copyright and patent reform, and more public domain of intellectual property. This makes my blood boil...


Congress calls to arms against pirates
By Declan McCullagh, Staff Writer, CNET News.com
May 19, 2003, 3:51 PM PT
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-1007908.html

Now it's official: Congress really doesn't like Internet piracy.
Three members of the House of Representatives are creating a new congressional caucus devoted to combating piracy and promoting stronger intellectual property laws.

A letter sent to some members of Congress last Friday by Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., warned of the threat of "ever-changing technologies" and asked colleagues if they would like to join the caucus. "The concerns of the thousands of Americans whose livelihoods depend on intellectual property protection are not being fully debated or addressed," said the letter, which was obtained by CNET News.com.

A representative for Wexler said on Monday that planning for the caucus--formally titled the Congressional Caucus on Intellectual Property Promotion and Piracy Prevention--is still in its early stages. "We literally just submitted the papers at the end of the last week, so it's just in formation," the representative said, adding that many possible Republican members have not been contacted yet.

Wexler co-sponsored a bill last year, backed by the major record labels, that would authorize copyright holders to disable PCs used for illicit file-trading. He also serves on the House Judiciary subcommittee that writes copyright laws.

It's unclear what immediate effect the caucus will have on new laws aimed at P2P pirates, although one likely outcome is to focus attention on what has emerged as a hot topic in the 108th Congress. The founding of the caucus comes as Congress is spending more time scrutinizing peer-to-peer piracy. One recent House committee hearing blamed P2P networks for spreading illegal forms of pornography, while another fingered universities as hotbeds of widespread--and felonious--copyright infringement.

Joining Wexler as co-founder of the caucus is Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., who helped author a note last fall to 74 fellow Democrats assailing the Linux open-source operating system's GNU General Public License as a threat to America's "innovation and security." Smith's Ninth District includes the Seattle surburbs near Microsoft's Redmond, Wash. headquarters. The third founder is Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla., a first-term congressman and former speaker of the Florida House of Representatives who was once Gov. Jeb Bush's running mate.

Hilary Rosen, chairman of the Recording Industry Association of America, commended the move. She said in an e-mail sent to CNET News.com that the RIAA applauds the House members "for forming this caucus and helping to focus the national debate on protecting intellectual property and preventing piracy. It's initiatives like this, along with those of other congressional leaders, which help showcase the economic and cultural contributions of the creative community while shedding light on piracy's harmful impact."

The Motion Picture Association of America was equally positive. "We're always grateful when members of Congress devote their attention to an issue as critical as the protection of copyrighted works," spokesman Rich Taylor said. "We look forward to working with this new body in the days and weeks to come, to help create an environment where a legitimate digital marketplace can thrive."

Hundreds of congressional caucuses exist, covering topics ranging from the Congressional Kidney Caucus to the Congressional Natural Hazards Caucus. Some, like the Congressional Black Caucus, are muscular enough to take an aggressive role in legislation. Others, like the Congressional Internet Caucus, are a way for the caucus' advisory board--in this case, groups like AOL Time Warner, Microsoft, eBay and the RIAA--to exert political influence.

Mike Godwin, senior technology counsel at the Public Knowledge advocacy group, said the House subcommittee that oversees intellectual property law "has been pretty energetic" already in reviewing the intersection of technology and copyright policy.

"If they believe that the best way to do it is to develop a caucus around P2P sharing, that's a fine idea," Godwin said. "As long as they remember that P2P sharing is at the heart of the design of the Internet."


Related News:

RIAA apologizes for erroneous letters May 13, 2003
http://news.com.com/2100-1025-1001319.html

Congress mulls new P2P porn restrictions March 13, 2003
http://news.com.com/2100-1025-992471.html

Congress targets P2P piracy on campus February 26, 2003
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-986143.html

Could Hollywood hack your PC? July 23, 2002
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-945923.html

Get this story's "Big Picture"
http://news.com.com/2104-1028-1007908.html

Copyright ©1995-2003 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

[Ken17625]

"The concerns of the thousands of Americans whose livelihoods depend on intellectual property protection are not being fully debated or addressed,"

What they mean is that their "associates" cash cow is being slaughterd, and that the age of raping the consumer is over.

A politician fears nothing more than having money fly out of his/her reach.

[at.morris]

Is file sharing big news in American? Or does it just seem it because i'm on a file-sharing news site?
I have only seen one report on filesharing in a broadsheet newspaper in the UK. It was a small column that sumed up some propaganda that EMI had put out about them selling music on the internet. A few days later there was a letter by a reader pointing out that the internet prices were no lower than buying the CD in the shop. That was the end of the debate! Perhaps I just havent done my research, but filesharing isn't anything that is being discussed in Parliament. I don't know, perhaps the MPs are too busy trying to sort out the expansion of the EU to deal with anything else at the moment. Or perhaps Parliament is waiting to see the American Congress solution to the problem...

[Aaron73153]

"The concerns of the thousands of Americans whose livelihoods depend on intellectual property protection are not being fully debated or addressed,"

That is some more bull$hit from the RIAA. Here's a personal example of how P2P helps artists. I had a friend tell me about a goth-metal band and i downloaded a couple of thier songs, and i liked what i heard. When I saw they were coming to town I went. P2P helps the artists, hurts the record companies. Plus alot of the people the RIAA represent also make money with commericials (Brittney), movies (Eminem) and other ways, not just through their "music".

The corporations and the politicions can see money flying away, so now we all get screwed.

[wessman]

Originally posted by at.morris
Is file sharing big news in American? Or does it just seem it because i'm on a file-sharing news site?...

Yes and no. Of course this site tries to pull in every related headline, but in the U.S., copyright and patent law, along with consumer rights and privacy have been huge topics in the Tech news sector. As for regular news, terrorism, economy and healthcare/medical headlines top the news.

Basically, Zeropaid has brought in a lot of headline hunters like myself, and a lot of simply pissed off Internet advocates ... again, like myself.

[The Hunter]

Also wessman, I usually do not comment on your posts, but you do a hell of a job, and keep them coming.

[Winphuk]

Originally posted by at.morris
Is file sharing big news in American? Or does it just seem it because i'm on a file-sharing news site?
I have only seen one report on filesharing in a broadsheet newspaper in the UK. It was a small column that sumed up some propaganda that EMI had put out about them selling music on the internet. A few days later there was a letter by a reader pointing out that the internet prices were no lower than buying the CD in the shop. That was the end of the debate! Perhaps I just havent done my research, but filesharing isn't anything that is being discussed in Parliament. I don't know, perhaps the MPs are too busy trying to sort out the expansion of the EU to deal with anything else at the moment. Or perhaps Parliament is waiting to see the American Congress solution to the problem...

Actually, I think they purposely try to avoid putting these issues out in the open so that they can quietly pass these bills with as little resistance as possible.

[Siskabush]

It aint much in Canada, ill tell you that.
In the US though, if money is up for grabs, then its has to be looked after.

[wessman]

Originally posted by Winphuk
Actually, I think they purposely try to avoid putting these issues out in the open so that they can quietly pass these bills with as little resistance as possible.

There is a LOT of truth to Winphuk's statement.

Originally posted by Siskabush
It aint much in Canada, ill tell you that. In the US though, if money is up for grabs, then its has to be looked after.

Siskabush, I'm not bashing Canada or jumping to conclusions, but are you implying that Canadian politicians are immune to corporate influence?

[metale]

Bah!!!!!


:finger


:finger

[FileHoover]

They'll probably pass a law making copyright infringement have a higher penalty than killing someone. Hmmm. The NET law provides for a 5 years in prison, that's about what you'd get for manslaughter or second degree murder isn't it?

I hope the law they pass isn't greater penalties but appeases the copyright holders by letting them defend their intellectual property by themselves with hacks etc. instead of the full weight of the US government justice system being applied to p2pers. Would you rather go to jail, or have your computer hacked?

Copyright isn't going away as much as you'd all like to dream that. It's in The Constitution, and even if some copyright holders are able to work within a p2p framework there are always going to be those who want the old fashioned iron fist approach, like Scientology, who has sued more people than anyone over copyright infringement.

[Siskabush]

To answer your question wessman, they are alot more immune then the US is.

If it involves big money for the US, then it gets looked after right away.

In Canada, they debate these things more thorougly. If it is bad for our nation, and only good for a corporation, most likely, it will get voted out.

Also, I havent seen you post a story about banning P2P from the Canadian poloticans. So, yeah, we are way more immune to corporate greed.

And dont worry, that aint bashing canada at all :D

PS - Keep the news comin, youre doin a hell of a job!

[NDGAARONDI]

Well Parliament can pass what they like, it's the courts that have the final say really. Sometimes the courts go against what Parliament wanted, happens quite a few times in England.

[FriedSpam]

Actually... technically in the UK, Parliament can make any Act and the courts have to follow it.

It's just the way they interpret the law that sometimes differs from what parliament actually intended.

They're more likely to try and find ways of interpretting things like breaches of Human Rights differently to how they were intended than they are with things like copyright.

As for what's happening in the US.... Be afraid! Be Very Afraid! Copyright (and trademarks and patents -all intellectual property) is very big business. And with big business what the US says usually goes for the rest of the West!

Also, don't forget that most of UK copyright law is derived from EU law which in turn gets a lot of its rules from international organisations which the US is party to (can anyone say "World Trade Organisation" ?).

[NDGAARONDI]

Well a know a court case where a defendant cross-examined a rape victim to obtain evidence. But according to the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act you could not do this. But it went ahead.

Yeah a lot of ways to get around Parliament is to use Human Rights.

But who says the United Kindom won't pull out of the EU and then change some laws that were made back then......? No one knows.....

And Parliament can't make any Act, they have to be in accordance with EU laws too. They tried passing the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 (I think), conflicted with EU legislation, so the Act doesn't work. Simple.

Although EU is similar to US on some IP stuff there are difference, and once I read there was a direct conflict. Not too sure what about, but something to do with business.

[FriedSpam]

the thing where courts overrule paliament on EU matters works like this:-

Parliament is Sovereign. It can make any Law it wants to and, at least from a British/UK point of view, this will be the law (the example usually given is that Parliament would be perfectly in its remit to make a law "No-one shall smoke on the streets of Paris". Not many people would obey it in Paris, but it would still be the law as far as British courts are concerned).

This was all well and good 'till we joined the EU. The courts had to find a way to make this fundamental constitutional rule apply without breaking our treaty obligations....

... the way they did this was to say. Well, by signing these treaties (Rome, Amsterdam and all that) Parliament has made an implication that it will obey EU law. So where EU law conflicts with UK law, we will apply EU law UNLESS paliament expressly says that it is its intention to make that specific law contrary to the treaty obligations.

It works kind of the same with our Human Rights Act. It sort of says (and this is debatable) that courts can interpret all laws to be compatible with the Convention on Human rights (and no-one is too sure how much they can do this) or if it is not compatible, declare it "incompatible". Parliament can then ammend it or leave it as it is and it will still be law!

Not sure about the rape victim one. I've not looked at that.... was this to do with human rights?

Don't know about pulling out of the EU, but we're now not getting the Euro...... :fire

.... or not until next parliament :bk

[NDGAARONDI]

That court case has a lot to do with the HRA. I believe it was the right to a fair trial, but unsure, the legislations too big for me, and I don't study human rights this year anyway.

You see Parliament can go against other treaty obligations, and EU law presides over ALL domestic law under s.2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972. So even if Parliament didn't obey that, the courts are the deciders ultimately. and it was Parliament that started these treaty obligations. Period.

Courts should only interpret the HRA when human rights are concerned in cases, but sometimes their decisions don't always follow what they should.

Well any unamended Act that offends treaty obligations, may remain law, but if a higher court, say the Court of Appeal, decides that a piece of English legislation offends the HRA, for example, then a future case on similar facts, need to be followed by the previous case (stare decisis). And then if you would want to overturn its decision you'd have to appeal to the House of Lords, and that's hardly granted, like 50 cases a year. So, since lower courts are bound by the higher ones, and if no exceptions are used, then the British statute won't be referred to, the treaties will be instead. Period.

I feel the same about you too on the Euro (NO!) lol :fire

Yeah there was an Act passed to look at the implications of withdrawal from the EU passed some months ago. In terms of law it hasn't really helped us, and to be honest, we're better without the ECJ et. all! :bk

[nasrules]

Congress = America

Me = Not in America

=> :-D

[NDGAARONDI]

Same 'ere but that's obvious. Thankfully we don't have to hear about what Congress are doing with "piracy" etc.

I wander if there's the equivalent emphasis on specified cybercrime like DoS, virii, hacking, worms, trojans etc. I mean hardly hear about Congress doing something about this. Well, no one posts stuff on hackers being caught etc.

Is fighting against p2p more important than hackers?!

[rainbowdemon]

Originally posted by metale
Bah!!!!!


:finger


:finger Another country heard from!!! Once again, very deep and thought provoking in it's simplicity. I agree100%.:fire :fire :fire