Chabot (R-RIAA)

DailyTech – New Bill Criminalizes Attempted IP Infringement — This is yet another one of these bills brought forth by an obscure stooge from some district in an area where there is no rational reason for a given Congressman to be in the pocket of the music business. How does this serve his specific constituency? In this case it’s Steven Chabot a Republican from Ohio. Read his bio here and tell me what he’s got to do with the music business. And according to this blogger Chabot also stooges for big liquor and big tobacco.

In an objection posted to the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Deep Links, the EFF finds that if this new bill becomes law, copyright holders can set statutory damages anywhere from $750 to $30,000 per work infringed — and the copyright holder doesn’t even have to prove the infringement. “Such disproportionate penalties can be especially dangerous when it comes to lawsuits against mass-market products like the iPod or TiVo that enable the making of thousands of copies,” it says. Further, damages can be handed out for each track of a CD where, under normal circumstances, the CD counts as one work: “This is particularly unfair because record labels register entire albums as single works principally to strip their artists of reversion rights they would otherwise enjoy if the songs were registered individually.”

Expansive in its scope, H.R. 3155 covers a wide range of topics. Section 12 takes the penalties for criminal copyright infringement and doubles them, turning 5-year prison terms into 10, and 10-year prison terms into 20 years.



  1. Colorado says:

    “tell me what he’s got to do with the music business.”
    Wouldn’t we want just the opposite. Someone not influenced by the music business one way or the other?

  2. moss says:

    Just another Republikan who’s taken the craft of flunkey and turned it a career. Part of the qualitative development of Kongressional politics this last decade.

    If his constituents ever get wise – not necessarily likely in Ohio – and boot his butt out of office, he’ll just move to an official lobbying office across the street.

  3. johns says:

    So another congresswhore takes his $3000 and fronts for the RIAA, more government of, by and for the corporations. No news here.

  4. malren says:

    Moss, are you under the impression that no Democrats do this kind of thing? Because if you are – that’s really, really stupid.

    When it comes to lobbyist corruption, there are no Republicans and Democrats. There are just Congresspeople. They are ALL corrupt.

  5. Mr. Fusion says:

    #4, malren

    OK, would you care to point out some Democratic legislation that is exactly favoring a private industry over the rights of the citizenry?

    OOoopps, I just got a flash, you won’t show your face again in order to avoid answering.

  6. hhopper says:

    OK I think I’ve figured it out. Our government is trying to make all citizens criminals. That way, they have total control.

  7. grog says:

    somebody please stop these knuckleheads from destroying the fabric of the free market.

  8. Guyver says:

    5. Just one example.

    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070115-8626.html

    The corruption goes both ways. I suppose you can change your argument to which party has the most, but I’ll leave that with someone else since I won’t have the time to entertain that.

    In either case, you believe your party is the party of ethical and honest people for the people and the other party is the complete opposite that. That’s partisan, but that’s your prerogative.

  9. bobbo says:

    I tried to google democrats and earmarks and didn’t come up with much in 30 minutes. Did find the Dem who refused to earmark and he lost his re-election by 153 votes to a Pub who DID promise to earmark.

    Now the earmark in question was additional funds to repair an intersection in some town. Seems like there is “legitimate” Congressional Directed spending that could be the proper subject of legislation and then there is pork which is a pay-back for political contributions?

    Always just a bit more gray when the details are looked at. Solution though is pretty easy and straightforward. COMPLETE TRANSPARENCY. Put all this stuff on the internet asap and let folks like us go to town. Bastard aren’t going to do it. Too bad. Another good and appropriate use for the interwebitudes down the drain.

  10. BobH says:

    Here’s a clue from experience: be very, very, very skeptical of anyone with a comb over.

  11. bobbo says:

    10—Hah!

    Comb over WITH a red nose==dead giveaway, guy looks 50% comatose from the get-go!

  12. hhopper says:

    Har – and don’t forget beady eyes either.

  13. SN says:

    The purpose of this law is to make all file sharing and P2P technologies illegal.

    Imagine if police found bittorrent on your computer. Is that evidence that you actually infringed a copyright? Nope. But it is evidence that you intended to use it to infringe copyright at a later time. In other words, it’s sufficient to charge the alleged perpetrator and take the case to a jury.

    There are plenty of other laws like this. Anytime anyone makes a step towards the commission of a crime there is usually an “attempted” law on the books under which that anyone could be charged.

    Thinking about committing a crime is not enough. Talking about the crime is not enough. You have to make some step towards the crime. For example, going to the bank to see how many guards are there. Actually, you don’t even have to make it to the bank, just getting up from the chair to go to the bank could be a step if the jury bought it.

    In the P2P realm, the mere fact that you installed a file sharing program shows that first step. Under the law you are guilty. Is it fair? Nope. But it’s rarely fair when the rich get their way.

  14. bobbo says:

    13—nice correct review. I wonder why jury nullification doesn’t occur more often??

    We must indeed by all sheeple—proud to stand by the oaths we take? Pride goeth before the fall.

  15. SN says:

    14. “I wonder why jury nullification doesn’t occur more often??”

    I don’t have the research here, unfortunately it’s at work. But jury nullification is real. However courts do not have to tell juries about it, even when asked, because it could lead to anarchy. At least they think it will. I think it would lead to better laws. But maybe I’m crazy.

  16. Rich says:

    I was confused all to hell until I realized IP in this case means “intellectual property” and not “internet protocol”. I’ll bet Shazz-Bot knows or understands neither of those terms. I live in Ohio and may move to Indiana.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 6798 access attempts in the last 7 days.