Quote:
Originally Posted by potter
... So you want to create a whole new section of the government that handles copyrights.
I guess that wouldn't be anything like the current U.S. Copyright Office?
|
ummm ... no. I am tempted to say 'learn a little comprehension with your reading skills' - but I won't
I support and advocate the ACTA initiatives. Thats a proposed
global treaty - it doesn't create a "
governmental section " - I would rather see it as a United Nations thing than a department under the control of any single government. I certainly don't want the U.S. Copyright Office in control of it.
And I see how you state that they 'handle' copyrights, inferring that they
enforce copyrights. They approve, register, and verify copyrights in a dispute - they do not enforce punitive actions against infringers - and they certainly do NOT have global control and jurisdiction now do they?
Copyright and copyright enforcement is a global issue - not a U.S. issue - think outside the box.
Quote:
Originally Posted by potter
... Then you want the police to file a civil case of copyright infringement against someone for you. Because you feel somehow a police officer doing it for you will somehow turn the case in your favor?
|
again, the comprehension thing - but I won't bring that up.
I want a centralized global tracking point - not police involvement at all (well, until an infringer proves he is worthy of their attention). I want to submit a
copy of my DMCA (or whatever form is devised) to this new (ACTA) organization., so that when I am ignored, or have to submit 20 (or 1,000) a day to the same pirate/sharing website, every single day of the year - I will have the backing of a global enforcement bureau to make things right. I will have someone on my side that can force the bastards to pay attention. And one that has the jurisdiction and authority to take the site down if they are flagrant repeat offenders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by potter
... Or you simply want copyright infringement to become a criminal case instead of a civil case. So you can focus the attention of the police force (who are already obviously up to their neck in REAL work) to put copyright infringers behind bars.
|
again - no (for the most part).
when they make a mistake, or a 'rouge designer' 'accidentally' uses a copyrighted image of mine - I can do the same thing that we do today plus submit a copy to a central organization. Mistakes do happen. Nothing changes.
But when they do it everyday (as will be evidenced by the growing mountain of DMCA copies in their centralized file) - or post siterips and continually engage in behaviour outside of legitimate fair use - then the local police may be called in. Its no different than how the people that duplicate DVD's are treated - they are simply infringing on copyright - but the police are called in - aren't they? Again - nothing changes except for additional centralized tracking (with authority and jurisdiction to step in and enforce
if necessary).
Quote:
Originally Posted by potter
... And of course, you say yourself it would be utterly impossible for someone to police the global net and enforce their copyright. But some how, making copyright infringement criminal instead of civil. Will just automagically make it possible to sniff out the copyright infringers and find them. Then, it will also automagically make it easier to have them arrested and thrown in jail.
|
your spin is out of control - again.
They would not be actively policing - I would - as would every other content producer out there - there would just be an additional central database to identify flagrant and continual infringers. To hold a PERSON accountable - and responsible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by potter
Is that the basis of your great idea?
|
No, mY words are the basis - not your 'spin' on my words - and my words are my opinion - not like I'm making the law here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by potter
Right now, copyright infringement is a civil case. A copyright holder, must seek out infringement of their copyrights and then take action through civil court.
You think,
1. There's too much internet, and no person could patrol the vast majority of it enough.
2. Somehow, legal action isn't effective and people committing copyright infringement get away.
3. Copyright infringers need to be put in jail, rather than pay the monetary compensation for the copyright infringement.
|
Again - just your spin on my words - why did you get 'rather than pay' instead of 'pay first and jail the repeat assholes who just don't get it' from my words
you are incorrect in your interpretations
Quote:
Originally Posted by potter
Now, you claim through new laws.
1. There would suddenly be less internet to patrol. Or that a police force would somehow be able to just "know" that a piece of digital material on a website, was copyrighted, and to someone else somewhere. They would also some how know who that copyright would actually belong to, and then be able to work up the documents to prove this, and then arrest the person.
|
I think if you understand what I am saying above - you now know that this is not what I am saying.
The copyright holder will still pursue the infringer - it will however be tracked and an ever-growing file will emerge on some of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by potter
2. With the new law, it would suddenly provide better jurisdiction. Because you feel the legal system can't get to people through civil actions. But it would somehow be able to get to them if it was criminal instead. Because the legal system only works with criminal action, the civil side is just all screwed up.
|
Spin and re-spin. The civil side is ineffectual as it is - I'm looking for some beefing up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by potter
3. Somehow committing copyright infringement shouldn't mean monetary compensation to the copyright holder. It should instead cause for the person committing it to be put in jail. Since obviously, if the law makes it criminal with jail time as the consequence. The crime will end and no one will ever commit it again.
|
you keep saying this - but I never did. Only in the cases of the most flagrant abusers should jail time be happening - just like it is today with DVD dupers. Make a copy for your Mom and no one cares - Make 10,000 copies for all your 'friends' - the Law cares.
Quote:
Originally Posted by potter
I mean really, your idea just makes so much sense. I can't find any inconsistency in the logic of it. Surely we should petition the U.S. Copyright Office to make the changes you've mentioned. It'll fix the problem overnight!
|
You really show that you are from the U.S. (or are trying to make it seem that you are)
I could give a fuck about the U.S. Copyright Office - they are clerks - simply approving copyright applications, filing them, and providing documentation and verification of the validity of a copyright during a dispute. Nothing more. Surely you do know this?
I speak of a
Global treaty and agreement. One that not only the U.S. government adheres to - but that the entire world (as much as that is possible) adheres to. A treaty that can be enforced. A treaty that will provide for the tracking of offenders so that punitive actions can be taken on flagrant and repeat offenders if necessary. (first monetary - then jail if you don't learn your lesson)
The current system was put in place to catch the occasional mistake - not to deal with a group of people who run thousands of sites out of untouchable countries. The laws need to be updated to take care of what it all has become - not what it was.
If IBM used a copyright image of mine and I DMCA them - they take it down and don't do it again. When Rapidscum gets my DMCA they 'may' take it down, but then put it right back up again, and again, and again - with no fear of reprisals.
I am advocating that they be made fearful of those reprisals - with a system in place that can enforce that fear.
And again, the U.S. Government or any section thereof will NOT be in control of.