Copyright Cops? (1 Viewer)

[TravisR]

I can not imagine that any country's law makers would create laws that would piss off the people that they're trying to get to keep voting for them.
Are you serious? That happens every day, at least every day the lawmakers are in session.

Maybe so but the people will draw line when it comes to giving the government the right to destroy their iPods. They'll let all types of other things slide but not entertainment.
If anyone is so worried about this happening in the U.S., contact your congressman now before it even comes up. That'll do alot more than talking about it on a message board.

 

[Brian^K]

No elevated blood pressure, no emotionalism, here. You're off-base.

I do agree with TravisR that it won't get to the point where there will be capricious and arbitrary destruction of iPods; I believe the possibility of that is being overplayed by critics in an attempt to obfuscate the essential issues.

 

[MatthewA]

and raised blood pressure.

I second Andrew's call. You have failed to address the primary concern. This organization wants governments to be able to search all media WITHOUT A WARRANT OR DUE PROCESS OF LAW at the borders and destroy iPods or computers with infringing media. How are they going to prove that the media was obtained by illegal means?
The fact that they are trying to keep the formation of this group a secret, and the only reason anybody knows about it is because of a leak on Wikileaks, concerns me. This is not military activity we're talking about.
I suggest everybody take a deep breath and read the documents, which can be downloaded here:
Proposed US ACTA multi-lateral intellectual property trade agreement (2007) - Wikileaks

 

[Brian^K]

This organization wants governments to be able to search all media WITHOUT A WARRANT OR DUE PROCESS OF LAW at the borders and destroy iPods or computers with infringing media. How are they going to prove that the media was obtained by illegal means?

Ask them. Read my messages again. You'll see, at no time, have I posted support for the tactics you're outlining. My points were about the intent, not their planned implementation. If you argue with me about what I have actually written, I think the thread would make a lot more sense and be more constructive.
Look: I know compliance with copyrights is an unpopular position. Please don't interpret someone posting in favor of compliance with the law as an attack, or as my "getting upset" or anything like that.

 

[MatthewA]

You don't know, so you're stonewalling and twisting everyone's words around to make it look like we are trying to defend illegal activity.
If I were to claim support for copyright infringement I would have come out and said so.

 

[BrianW]

I'm sorry, but are you saying that you believe one or more contributors to this thread have taken issue with you because you've taken the unpopular position that compliance with the law is a good thing?

 

[Brian^K]

How about we create a separate thread to discuss the thread? Let's leave this thread to discuss copyright.

 

[Thomas Newton]

A typical remedy for copyright or trademark infringement is the destruction of the infringeing item.

In RIAA vs. Diamond Multimedia, the judge ruled that transferring files onto a MP3 player ("space-shifting") was a paradigmic example of Fair Use, and that it was consistent with the Supreme Court's guidelines in the Betamax case.
So no matter how what the RIAA or the major labels say, or wish, transferring music from your CDs to your iPod is 100% legal, 100% non-infringing.
Now ... there is nothing in a MP3 or AAC file that says "This file is infringing" or "This file is 100% legal". Some border guard sees CopyrightedSong.MP3, they don't know Jack and S*** about whether you have a right to possess that copy of that song. And in a free country, as opposed to a police state, it is not your obligation to prove that you are innocent. It is their obligation to prove that you are guilty -- and to have reasonable suspicion before they even start treating you as possibly guilty.
So considering the huge number of travelers who will be carrying iPods full of completely legal copyrighted content and who would be falsely ensnared by any attempt at non-selective enforcement, what is this REALLY about?
Yet another attack on technology? Or worse?

 

[Yee-Ming]

If I may say so, Thomas Newton's summary of what is the main issue being debated here, in discussing the 'destruction of the infringing item' and the scope of the RIAA v. Diamond decision, is quite spot on. Unless I've misread or misunderstood (or more like, remembered incorrectly) Brian^K doesn't support the notion that border guards can go around destroying innocent travellers' MP3 players, but conversely he hasn't really engaged on the issue, and this is the issue that is riling everyone else up. Indeed he advocates sterner measures for copyright infringers, which others have read to mean even more draconian powers than summarily confiscating and/or destroying an iPod.

I think it is safe to say we all concur copyright infringement is a no-no. But the latest salvo from the big corporations may result in laws that impact even non-infringers , to their detriment in terms of property being confiscated or destroyed. THAT is what is pissing the rest of us off. I for one would be furious if on my next trip to the US, some overzealous customs official confiscates my iPod, which consists entirely of rips of CDs I own, a few tracks purchased from iTunes, and free podcasts downloaded (again completely legal). Am I expected to travel with photographs of all the CDs I've ripped, to 'prove' that the MP3/AAC copies on my iPod are legal?

As an aside, to date investigations of laptops, from my limited experience, is indeed to see if explosives have been hidden in their cavities, and turning on the laptop is an easy check to see that it's a functioning machine, and not a mere 'shell' packed with plastique; more sophisticated checks would be to wipe it down for residue and to test with chemicals for a reaction, or using sniffing devices.

 

[Thomas Newton]

When the seller doesn't intend to grant license to make backups, and the law doesn't provide it, it isn't allowed. That's the way it should be... and perhaps should have been for all digital media, but it happens not to apply, specifically, to computer software, as a matter of law.

The only reason the law wouldn't allow backups is because the law has been twisted to work against the public interest, against the Constitutional interest that it is supposed to serve.
When a DVD or Blu-Ray disc encrusted with DRM reaches the end of the copyright period, and the work returns to full public domain as required by the highest law in the land, what will the public have in return for its generosity in granting the copyright monopoly for all of those years?
Damaged goods. Maybe even with the DMCA still blocking circumvention of the DRM despite the fact that the contents of the disc have finally returned to public domain. The monopoly recipient gets rewarded, and the public gets the shaft. When you see a system that not only allows this outcome, but that actually encourages it, you know something is wrong.

 

[andrew markworthy]

I really don't know why I'm doing this, but there's so much muddled logic in some of the responses that I just can't resist. Let's go back to basics:

(1) Breach of copyright is theft, pure and simple.

(2) Copyright simply means that someone has ownership of the item copyrighted because it is a product of their work and they wish to control its distribution. Typically, this means they want paying for their work.

(3) That means that copyright owners need protecting, but there are pragmatic limits on this protection.

(4) For example, suppose someone had copyright and patent on a drug to sure AIDS, but insisted that he would only sell it at $1 million per person. Would anyone who broke copyright on this and distributed this cure for free be a bad person? They would be breaking the law, but most people would agree they would be morally right. On the other hand, what if the inventor were charging $5 per cure? Someone breaching copyright now would be seen as not only breaking the law but also immoral.

(5) This attitude of recognising the law is fair, but only provided it is sensibly carried out has a long history. At various times, people have turned a blind eye to smuggling and buying smuggled goods on items when governments have imposed ludicrously expensive taxes. Again, people committing minor crimes that carried the death penalty would be let off by juries who could not bear to see draconian punishments imposed for trivial offences.

(6) So the matter hinges on how far copyright laws can be imposed. It isn't solely a matter of saying 'all copyright must be protected' because there are pragmatic limits to this.

(7) Where we impose a boundary of 'pedantically speaking illegal, but permissable in practice' is a matter of pragmatics. IMHO: borrowing for the purpose of evaluation over a short time period; passing on an item for non-profit without retaining a copy; copying for personal use only (e.g. making mp3 files) are all permissable. These are strictly speaking illegal, but without this, routine matters become impossible to conduct.

 

[Edwin-S]

As I see it, the question is does the government have the right to randomly search and seize, without probable cause, a person's personal effects (i.e. MP3 player) to protect a corporation or industry's interests (i.e copyright)?
I say no. The individual's right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure should always come before the protection of some corporation or individual's copyright claims.

 

[Brian^K]

to their detriment in terms of property being confiscated or destroyed.

There is no reason to believe that that shall be the case. Just look at how today's laws allowing confiscation of vehicles for drug offenses work.

 

[Brian^K]

... what will the public have in return for its generosity in granting the copyright monopoly for all of those years?

The economic vitality stemming from a healthy commercial economy.

 

[Brian^K]

As I see it, the question is does the government have the right to randomly search and seize, without probable cause, a person's personal effects (i.e. MP3 player) to protect a corporation or industry's interests (i.e copyright)? I say no.

So far, no one here has supported random search and seizure. No one. I, as basically the most prolific poster in this thread supporting the rights of content owners, have said a few times that the principle of reasonable suspicion must be respected. Now, with probably cause, things would be different, of course, as you alluded to.

 

[Edwin-S]

In order to inspect a player in the first place, the customs officer would have to have "reasonable suspicion", beforehand, that copyright violations have taken place. From where does the "reasonable suspicion" derive?
It is impossible to determine if a person has violated copyright regulations just by inspecting the contents of an MP3 player. Unless the only indicator of copyright infringement used is the sheer number of songs present on the player. The only way to determine the content of the player is to search it. Yet to search it, the officer has to have some reason to demand that it be turned over for a search.
IMO, an officer saying, "I have a suspicion that you have violated copyright law" is not enough to warrant a search of one's personal property.

 

[drobbins]

Quote:

 

[BrianW]

You and I must be reading different threads, because I have seen messages posted that make it clear that the poster disrespects copyright law.

I'd be grateful if you'd identify said messages, because, like others, I have somehow missed them.

 

[Brian^K]

here is against is supporting random search and seizure!

So far no one has supported random anything. Is the problem, here, that people feel the need to attack someone for this idea, and are just randomly choosing a target?

 

[Brian^K]

If I have a chance later I'll go back and post the relevant quotes.