U.S. Govt joins piracy fight

[Linda!]

Attorney General Eric Holder Friday announced the creation of a Justice Department intellectual property task force to better tackle domestic and international piracy and other IP crimes. "The rise in intellectual property crime in the United States and abroad threatens not only our public safety but also our economic well being," Holder said in a statement. "This Task Force will allow us to identify and implement a multi-faceted strategy with our federal, state and international partners to effectively combat this type of crime."

http://techdailydose.nationaljournal...task-force.php

[Shaggy]

Brought to you by the US Govt... paid subsidiary of the RIAA.

[tnronin]

Ya I wonder how much they had to pay to get the Feds involved with such an IMPORTANT issue?

[dsvick]

You selfish, senseless clods - It's for the children. Oh wait wrong topic - sorry.

[Bremen Cole]

I can sleep better at night now. Our Attorney General is pulling out all the stops to protect us from the threat of terrorism and.... er....never mind....

I do not see it as the Federal Governments job to protect the intellectual rights of corporations. If is is, then why don't they have Federal Marshals at Wal-mart tracking down shop lifters?

[GA Russell]

Does stealing nuclear secrets constitute IP crime? If not, I don't see how IP crime is relevant to public safety.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Bremen Cole

I do not see it as the Federal Governments job to protect the intellectual rights of corporations.

They'll protect any corporation that has a big enough checkbook.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Bremen Cole

I do not see it as the Federal Governments job to protect the intellectual rights of corporations. If is is, then why don't they have Federal Marshals at Wal-mart tracking down shop lifters?

Why is it not? They already deal with patents and copyrights. I see this as no different. Intellectual property, patents, copyrights etc. are valid nationwide--thus it's a federal issue and not a state issue. We wouldn't want a system where someone had to get a patent, or secure their intellectual property in all 50 states separately.

Anyway, I'm fine with it as I'm 100% supportive authors and other owners of intellectual property get the money they deserve for their work.

If it costs too much in your mind, don't buy it. Price doesn't justify stealing.

If you need to put it on multiple devices for your own use (and not to give to others) then fine, strip the DRM. I can't argue with that as long as you're not putting it on file sharing or giving it away and costing the publisher sales.

If authors just want their work in as many people's hands, they can give it away on their website and not sign contracts with publishers.

I just never have understood, or respected, people that don't respect intellectual property rights and expect artists, authors, record labels, publishers etc. to just give away their work or sell it at some low price they deem acceptable.

I get the issues with DRM when it's a hassle to not be able to read you e-book on all your devices etc. But that's a separate issue from whether you respect intellectual property rights. That's just a case of dumb policy from publishers that hurts legitimate users more than it thwarts piracy.

Hopefully this federal involvement will deal with shutting down major file sharers and pirates and not bother with DRM stripping that doesn't involve file sharing, torrents etc.

[thename]

Originally Posted by Bremen Cole

I do not see it as the Federal Governments job to protect the intellectual rights of corporations. If is is, then why don't they have Federal Marshals at Wal-mart tracking down shop lifters?

Well, shop lifters are violating the law just as those who violate our copyright/IP laws (like you, me, and pretty much anyone who does things like strip DRM, rip DVDs, etc.) are. They're deciding to pursue those who violate our laws which I think most would suggest is sound policy (the ridiculousness of many of said laws notwithstanding).

Now, time to rally the troops and change the stupid laws they're enforcing!

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

I just never have understood, or respected, people that don't respect intellectual property rights and expect artists, authors, record labels, publishers etc. to just give away their work or sell it at some low price they deem acceptable.

Consider the following?

Originally Posted by Boldrin&Levine

We can also estimate the willingness to pay for earlier delivery through the examination of express delivery charges.On October 1, 2002, Amazon.com, for example, charged $0.99 per book delivered in three to seven days, $1.99 per book delivered in two days, and $2.99 per book delivered in one day.
So, some consumers at least are willing to pay $1 extra to have a book delivered twenty-four hours sooner. This is obviously a substantial first-mover advantage.
Indeed, for books, we do find that up-front profits are typically the most important. Eric Flint reports that the “standard experience is that 80% of a book’s sales happens in the first three months.”13
Our own data on a much broader base of fiction novels shows a decrease in sales over the initial four months of roughly a factor of six.14 The book industry, at least for paperback novels, is an industry in which the cost of creation is relatively small. Flint reports that the “average paperback sells, traditionally, about 15,000 copies” which, with a royalty of $2 per copy, would work out to about $30,000, also consistent with our broader database.

Intellectual property supporters, such as Jack Valenti, former head of the MPAA, become extremely agitated about the fact that many innovations are risky. After all, it is bad enough that competitors should be allowed to “steal” “your” creation. But if the original project is risky, they will only choose to “steal” if you are successful: few illegal copies of such great flops as the 1987 Ishtar are widely distributed on the Internet. We have already mentioned elsewhere that such an argument makes little practical sense: there is only one way in which one can tell for sure if a movie or a book is a great success or a flop, and that always comes after the fact. If something is labeled a “great success,” it means has sold lots of copies already, thereby allowing its original creator to make lots of money. That an imitator comes in after the fact to grab a few crumbs from the floor cannot make much of a difference.
In any case, it remains true that when a new product is launched it is with a high degree of uncertainty as to its actual market performances. What implication does the existence of uncertainty have for competition in the ideas sector? Does it make a difference that some ideas are revealed not to have any or little market value after the initial investment has already taken place, while others are hugely successful? It does not; it simply changes the algebra of computing profits.
In short, the uncertainty surrounding the success of an innovation changes the specific calculations of how likely it is to take place; this is true with or without intellectual monopoly. But the basic theory of competitive innovation does not change on account of uncertainty – an uncertain outcome is equivalent to earning a lower rent or to having a higher cost. (p.144-5)

IP is redundant (considering copying and printing your own version of a (paper) book to sell will take you long enough that most of the interest of a book will already have waned).

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Why is it not? They already deal with patents and copyrights. I see this as no different.

If the justice department is talking about getting into the business of enforcing civil laws, then there is a huge difference.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with this thread, so I'm not sure what your point is, other than just a typical anti-piracy rant.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by thename

Well, shop lifters are violating the law just as those who violate our copyright/IP laws (like you, me, and pretty much anyone who does things like strip DRM, rip DVDs, etc.) are. They're deciding to pursue those who violate our laws which I think most would suggest is sound policy (the ridiculousness of many of said laws notwithstanding).

There is a big difference between the government pursuing criminal shoplifting versus pursuing civil copyright infringement.

Besides, how often is shoplifting a felony?

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

If the justice department is talking about getting into the business of enforcing civil laws, then there is a huge difference.

Again, they already enforce laws about copy right infringement, patent disputes etc. which are very similar to intellectual property laws. Lots of patents are for inventions--and thus are a persons intellectual property.

Inventing a gadget or medicine etc. and getting a patent to protect it and make money off of it is no different than an artist making music or an author writing a book. It's their copyrighted intellectual property.

All that stuff is not criminal law. I just don't see this as any different than other types of patents/copyrights. People just see it different for some stupid reason since the product is electronic vs. being a physical CD or book. Property is property. Pay for it or do with out it unless the owner is giving it away.

And yes it was the typical anti piracy rant as this site is full of pirates, so I expect this thread to be all up in arms against the government trying to protect peoples intellectual property because people here have some sense of entitlement to be able to get things free, or pirate things not available in their country.

There's no excuse for break laws, criminal or civil. If you don't like a law, work to change it. Boycott the products, write publishers. Don't break the law, steal someones intellectual property and whine when governments take steps to crack down on piracy.

But in any case, I've said my piece and will bow out of this thread now.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by Linda!

Attorney General Eric Holder Friday announced the creation of a Justice Department intellectual property task force to better tackle domestic and international piracy and other IP crimes. "The rise in intellectual property crime in the United States and abroad threatens not only our public safety but also our economic well being," Holder said in a statement. "This Task Force will allow us to identify and implement a multi-faceted strategy with our federal, state and international partners to effectively combat this type of crime."

http://techdailydose.nationaljournal...task-force.php

I have only one comment for this - man-portable EMP device on the DOJ data systems. They need to have a "Postage Due" run on them.

Derek

[TGS]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

If you need to put it on multiple devices for your own use (and not to give to others) then fine, strip the DRM. I can't argue with that as long as you're not putting it on file sharing or giving it away and costing the publisher sales.

If "intellectual property rights" are exercised by publishers putting DRM on ebooks, and that DRM stops you from putting the ebook that you have bought on multiple devices for your own use, then it's OK to strip the DRM? But if I want to strip the DRM so I can give the ebook to my mate, and then get rid of my copy, that's not OK? And if, having legitimately paid for an ebook, and realizing I will never want to read it again, I want to sell it or give it to a charity shop so they can sell it - like I could with a pbook - that's not OK?

I think I've understood what you're saying - I just don't understand why you would be saying it.