Yesterday, President Bush signed into law the Pro-IP Act, which further criminalizes consumer behavior and appoints a new “Copyright Czar” to oversee enforcement of the new measures. The law triples damages in copyright infringement cases, allows the government to seize property used to usurp a company’s copyrights (hang onto those laptops), and makes each song, movie, or other piece of stolen content a separate criminal offense. Correction: this last provision thankfully was stripped out of the bill. The law is so over the top that even the Department of Justice opposed it.
Chalk this one up as another victory in the copyright wars to the reactionaries who don’t want anything to change. They think that copyright law written in the pre-digital age needs to be reinforced instead of rethought. Lawrence Lessig described what is at stake in an Op-Ed yesterday in the Wall Street Journal:
We are in the middle of something of a war here — what some call “the copyright wars”; what the late Jack Valenti called his own “terrorist war,” where the “terrorists” are apparently our kids. . . . Peer-to-peer file sharing is the enemy in the “copyright wars.” Kids “stealing” stuff with a computer is the target. The war is not about new forms of creativity, not about artists making new art.
Yet every war has its collateral damage. These creators are this war’s collateral damage. The extreme of regulation that copyright law has become makes it difficult, sometimes impossible, for a wide range of creativity that any free society — if it thought about it for just a second — would allow to exist, legally. In a state of “war,” we can’t be lax.
The copyright wars threaten to kill new forms of creativity and free speech that are emerging on the Web. What is lacking in bills like the Pro-IP Act is a counterbalancing protection of free speech and a clearer definition of fair use. A video mashup of a 13-month-old baby dancing to Prince’s “Let’s Go Crazy” should be fair use, but YouTube was asked to take down that exact video anyway and it did. Because nobody wants to take these things to court or pay triple damages. Under the new law, would each view of such a video be considered a separate infringement?
If John McCain or Barack Obama really want to show their independence from corporate lobbyists then they should explain how they will help to steer copyright law into the 21st Century. (McCain, for one, can certainly appreciate the fair use argument).
The DOJ link goes nowhere.
Still broken.
Another policy put in place that will cripple the people of this country?
I hope these new laws are not actually enforced – yet another means to punish and place in jail; non-violent “offenders”.
Marijuana cures cancer. Just look up any medical research on cannabinoids and cancer. Damn these czars.
we all know he was paid off to sign this law into action…these politicians just dont give a sh-it about us
> we all know [Bush] was paid off to sign this law into action
Actually, he wasn’t. The MPAA and RIAA members donate almost exclusively to Democrats. They’re one of the top-three donor groups for Dems. (The other two groups are Wall Street and the trial lawyers – neither of those groups give much to Repubs either.)
The Repubs go along on this because they don’t care.
Does this mean I’m going to find the finest content from the jungles of Columbia?
Erick, thank you, we need this voice.
One of the biggest problems is internet literacy (& average age) in both Houses of government but especially so in the Senate. I’m from PA & have called both my Senators about this issue –Specter was instrumental in crafting this legislation.
These legislators are completely internet illiterate. This is what makes the situation so scary. They don’t understand any of it, so it is extremely inappropriate for them to make laws on these issues when they are heavily reliant on Valenti and others to explain the issues to them.
The best way to resolve this issue is to create term limits to get some of the older officials out of office. Unfortunately any real term limits is unlikely to pass, so I think some group needs to create some sort of proficiency test for our elected officials.
Information technology/internet literacy ability is not just important in showing whether candidates will be effective in their elected roles it is crucial to understanding issues facing younger constituents. I would argue that internet literacy is more important than a candidates political points of view–I’m less interested in how they feel about an issue than about whether or not they can actually understand it. And IP law, FISA, and other internet legislation will have a greater impact on our/my daily life than any other legislation out there.
We live on the internet. Who is going to protect us?
It is the enforcement that is the real problem in anything. Good luck with that.
Michael Kassing
MarkTend.com
The business model of most of these IP companies is to prolong the pre-digital age of distribution for as long as possible. It won’t last.
A real dissappointment but not a surprise. The media conglomorates are completely unbridled because it is as it’s been stated by others that we have ignorance running rampant through the Senate and House. They are merely selling off the Bill of Rights and the American “Public Domain” $4600 at time to the highest ranking celebrity. Look at how much these guys and gals get from the Counter Culture Elite like Striesand, Spielberg, Oprah, Jane Fonda and blah blah blah. Yet every one of these Un-American soapboxers while advocating for Counter Culture Libertarian views and Socialist/Marxist economic policies usually will never pay the high taxes (they take advantage of every loophole) they advocate for the working class. Now if that’s not enough they want to perpetuate a 21st Century Royal/Fuedal class system where the common cicitzen must pay tribute or look at the ground everytime the King passes by – hey Bradgelina, Bennifers, Leos, Lars, Sean (I know that dude, he hates America) Penn and such others – the world can live without you and your “art” but you can’t live with your fans while they are in a debtors prison.
Reactionaries?!
This bill was sponsored by Patrick Leahy (D) and passed by a Democrat-controlled House/Senate (which has an approval rating of 17%).
Try *radicals*.
Guess you missed that in 8th grade Civics, assuming you stayed in school that long…
Everything he did in office benefits him.
Not true. I would argue the opposite. He has the worst approval rating in the nation. How does that benefit him?
He BELIEVES (regardless of whether your or I do) that he is putting country first and protecting us from ________. He has enough money as is, so I don’t buy that ridiculous argument.
This is ridiculous.
I find it amusing that everyone is blaming Bush for signing a law written by the Democrat controlled congress.
I’ve also heard that the publishing industry is producing very influential lobbyists, surpassing oil and gas even. There has been fierce debate and opposition from publishers where Open Access is concerned, which is another way Americas pay for something they have no equity in…. publishers reap the benefits from the federally funded research that shows up in their journals to which a subscription costs an arm and a leg.
This attitude these ‘publishers’ or copyright holders have adopted seems really in opposition to their self interest. I can’t understand why they feel as though they have to criminalize their customer base. Where does that leave them? I for one wish I could go without some of these things and boycott this kind of treatment from them.
I tend to agree with Erick that these corporations have lost touch with their industry, especially their customer base, and are trying to dictate terms which do not apply to the modern life. Instead of creating new models for these realities, they are pushing their customers away. The BBC had a report just this week which related that people are willing to legally obtain these files when the services are there (see http://news.bbc...ogy/7664088.stm ).
In the US, copyright has always been for the benefit of the copyright holders (read publishers/producers). Our originating copyright laws were written by publishers. This does, as Erick so finely states, put a free society at odds with self expression and creativity. I applaud the user movement via Creative Commons that defines how works can be used as well as the users’ contributions to the pool of assets.
It’s uncomfortable for me as a consumer of books, journals, films, television and music to support these corporations. It’s too bad so many artists below these corporate umbrellas need them in order to create. I feel a little trapped by it, that’s for sure.
What ever happened to supply and demand? Aren’t people demanding digital models, and the corporations– aren’t they falling short? Instead of investing in lawyers, they should be investing in digital media infrastructure and futurists to keep an eye on their base.
Thank you, Erick, for this post.
terrible just terrible.
Please explain how the use of the Prince song in the YouTube video qualifies as fair use. Seriously.
It was background music the kid was dancing to. The point was a 13-month-old was getting off his @$$ and dancing, which is more than most kids can claim these days. The video wasn’t there to “distribute music” to others, it wasn’t there to sell, it wasn’t there to make a profit of – it was a home video of some kid dancing. FAIR USE.
It was a blatant case of copyright infringement and the kid knew it. Send his arse to jail, that’ll teach him.
Seriously. The world is retarded.
prince song being fair use:
mom sees her son dancing to prince, grabs camera, films.
it’s the same kind of non-profit documentary film making as, eg, kids shooting video of themselves dancing at the prom that incidentally contains snippets of properly-licensed (at time of playback) ambient music.
if that kind of filmmaking isn’t considered fair use — eg, fit to be shared on youtube — it’s no wonder people are just going to ignore the illegality of “producing” such videos.
Why should the labels be able to use random and overwhelming civil suits as a scare tactic against a “violation” that MOST people partake in to some extent?
Someone should develop a list of “violators” that are family and friends of the record execs and employees. Why do the labels sue the shit out of random “violators” while ignoring their children, relatives, and even friends. EVERYONE violates those outdated laws. Under a magnified lens, we are ALL guilty.
I blame the artists for being whores. The artists should side with the people and rebel against their iron fisted slave-masters. Why should a guy who makes a fucking song be ENTITLED to more money than a firefighter or a soldier or a doctor. If you can’t make money through alternative revenue streams in our digital society, then find ANOTHER JOB.
For the vast majority of artists, the artist is making FAR less money than the exec behind the label. The artist isn’t ENTITLED to more money and 99.99% of the time doesn’t feel that they are. It’s the RIAA label execs who feel ENTITLED and who back most of the lawsuits. Our campus doesn’t get blanket, vaguely-threatening letters from Insert-Band-Name-Here every year for piracy, it gets them from the RIAA. Take the guff up with the big wigs – or better, get on Congress to break their organization entirely and let the artists make their money rather than a company.
Agreed. But, new artists have the option of not selling out to a huge label. If you sell out, then you are taking the good with the bad. You are making a statement that you will sacrifice your voice against large labels since they can make your dreams come true. I don’t really know exactly who to vent my anger towards, but the whole thing is crazy to me.
At the end of the day, economics will likely dismantle the big labels as law suits are costly and ineffective against piracy. They will scale down, encourage fair use, lower prices, and get smart to alternative revenue streams.
I have a huge problem paying 99 cents for a sharty ass iTunes song, but don’t think twice before paying $1.99 for a Guitar Hero track…People steal discographies for artists that they pay $200 for concert tickets for….
Or put it differently: it’s a fact of human nature that people like to capture their experiences and document their lives.
It’s point of fact of modern life that more people have videocameras available more and more of the time, eg in their cellphones.
It’s also a point of fact of modern life that the ubiquity of media means that more and more life experiences are bathed in ambient music and sometimes video (eg: go to a bar, there’s music playing and some tvs on watching the game).
Its also increasingly a point of fact of modern life that people like to share their life experience with others, often via tools like youtube and flickr and blogs and so on.
If the notion of fair use isn’t sufficiently robust to make it “safe” to upload my birthday party video from last night (which will contain random bits of ambient music and video, all of which is presumably under copyright), then oh well the law is clearly nuts and not worth following, as it runs contrary to common sense and common practice.
agreed.
Soooooooooo……triple fines by the CZAR……
hey, those are MYYYYYYY notes…gimme’ a million dollars…
I mean $3 Million dollars !!!!
Just another infringement on our civil rights. I guess the music and movie industry lobby is paying big money to congressional leaders. I agree the candidates should speak on copyright law especially Obama who taught Constitutional Law in Chicago.
http://www.techNmore.com
I beg to differ with you and your opinion here. If you really understood how the major image search engines work, you would clearly see how they routinely violate the copyright laws of this country. If you want the laws changed, write your Senator or Congressman/woman.
Until that happens, Google, Microsoft, Baidu, and Yahoo should have to play by the exact same set of rules and regulations (and laws) as everyone else out here in this free society.
I congratulate the German judges … and those in Belgium and France, as well. They are obviously not being bribed by the technology industry lobbyists who have penetrated all aspects of our government and our legal/court system in this country.
Give your readers a bresk. The images posted on image search engine servers are used by end users day in and day out. Millions and millions of them. For both online and print applications. They are not simply used for “indexing”. Do you really believe that nonsense?
You cannot even transmit graphics with much larger size or detail over many mobile networks. Only a graphics moron would conclude otherwise.
Use one of the image search engines and discover this for yourself. You might be surprised. In fact, why don’t you e-mail some of the so-called indexed images to your friends while you’re at it. I am sure they have web sites that need new web resolution images as well.
I have researched and documented this issue for four solid years now. I know these laws better than anyone else I know. The German courts got this one exactly right … and it is about damn time.
Professional graphic artists and photographers have become increasingly more vocal and are sick and tired of hearing this kind of whining come out of Silicon Valley. These technologists don’t think they get to establish their own set of laws and rules in this country … at the detriment of all others … or do they?
You comments here are welcome. The copyight pendulum has finally begun to swing the right way in this country (and abroad) and we have well-reasoned judges in other countries to thank for bringing up our internal levels of intelligent analysis and competence.
Copyright defense lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians have ruled for the past eight years in this country. It’s now the time for ordinary hard-working people and our creative communities to have their turn.
George Riddick
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.
griddick@imageline2.com
It’s that grid-dick guy again, still upset that his shitty clipart isn’t getting bought anymore.
Hey,
Where did my comment go?
O, I see it. So sorry about that. I thought…
well nevermind..:-)
I read another document today, in a similar vein. It was a plea by the American Association of University Professors to protest U.S. government siezure of airline passenger computer files. On the pretext of national security, the new situation is that the U.S. government can download whatever information they wish from your laptop computer as you pass through an airport. If it is confidential business information, it could be leaked to your competitors. If it is other sensitive personal information, who knows what miight become of it. Previously, the government could only sieze your files if they had probably cause to beleive that you were involved in terrorism. Now they can sieze your files whenever they please, at least when you are in an airport.
In the same day, I learn that the U.S. government can seize both my data and my computer.
(Good intentions aside, it it even possible these days to completely avoid having or receiving illigal copies of copyrighted material. Does this represent nationalization of all U.S. computers?)
It’s funny that you gave a little link-love to John McCain, when it’s Barack Obama who releases his content through Creative Commons Licensing.
Yes We Can.
This is absolutely ridiculous! Whats next the gov’t will track you down and have you killed…O, that’s been done already! Screw these Czars and their teams. Things like this make me feel more and more like I’m living in a society where we are NOT free.
Erick,
You have your basic facts wrong. You write that “The law triples damages in copyright infringement cases.” Oh really? I challenge you to cite the provision that you claim does that. Since your whole screed against the bill is based on your erroneous misrepresentation of what the bill does, this error is very material. It is clear you did not read the bill, but just picked up this erroneous factoid from some other screed. This is the whole problem with you CopyWrong types – you use faulty facts to whip each other into an unnecessary frenzy. there is plenty of room for reasonable disagreement and discussion on copyright issues, but not with people who consistently base their arguments on falsehoods.
I fully expect Hilary Rosen, former head of RIAA and big Obama booster, to be the next ‘Copyright Czar’. An Obama administration will be just as media-centric as the Bush administration was oil-centric.
If we’re going to be asking what the new legislation is going to do in its particulars, we might as well read how it changes the old copyright law. That can be done by seeing the new provisions integrated into the remaining parts of the earlier version. (Not much is changed.) The new text has been substituted into the old, in accordance with the changes specified in the bill (Public Law 110-403), at:
http://law.copyrightdata.com/
All anyone need do is scroll down the pull-down box to select a date of Oct. 13, 2008 or later. Then press: “Submit Request.” Now to see the old version, and to do so alongside the new, open a different browser, position it next, then select from http://law.copyrightdata.com the law as of Oct. 12, 2008 or earlier.
You probably want to know just where to look in those big long files, so retrieve the bill (110-403) so it can tell you what subsections and chapters have been changed. You can find the bill at http://thomas.loc.gov and at http://law.copy.../amendments.php.
It’s that simple.
Simple doesn’t mean you’ll like the bill. Still, the question is whether the people getting nailed by it really are doing illegal copying knowingly and maliciously and at cost to the work’s owners, and also whether there is any innocents being imperiled by it.
From the comments above, there seem to be whiners about the free ride coming nearer to an end. Any comments now on what will be affected in the public arena? (I mean by that: are there any comments from people who actually make an effort to find out how this will work in practice?)
I just hope this FAILS
FAILS
FAILS
FAILS
and FAILS MISERABLY