(According to the wikipedia definition)
“Copyright infringement (or copyright violation) is the unauthorized use of material which is covered by copyright law, in a manner that violates one of the original copyright owner’s exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works that build upon it.”
Now I’ve been reporting consistently on copyright infringement and this growing debate at Alternative Fuel Source, a non-profit group I’ve built over the past couple years. The term copyright infringement is straight up and down. You are either in violation of the law or not.
In researching the issue, I’ve been made aware of legal discrepancies and contradictions. Apple is forced to use DRM technology, but the big four record companies don’t apply the same standards to their cd’s, because it would cost more to produce and distribute. Internet radio is being attacked with unreasonably high royalty rates suggested by SoundExchange, but standard radio stations go on playing popular music with much lower levels in play.
I’ve also been lucky enough to be introduced to many intelligent and socially active people. One of which is Jim Gilliam, who contacted me on behalf of Robert Greenwald and Brave New Films. We (PreteFunkEra and I) conversed with them after Prete aquired the domain names of ImpeachGonzales.com and .net. Robert Greenwald had put together ImpeachGonzales.org and said he wanted to partner up on the “Impeach Gonzales” websites.
In turn, we produced a wordpress blog immediately and here we are. That’s called a brief context. I want people who read this to understand why this development has my full attention. I’m almost giddy thinking about it, seeing these two issues that I’ve been following closely merge together. Almost giddy, but not quite.
My lack of excitement is because of the grave implications at stake. If Alberto’s track record is any indication of the severity of this new bill, coupled with the increasing litigation from the entertainment and software giants, it will cause havoc for any entity, whether large or small, non-profit, single user, and anything in between considered responsible for diminishing returns.
Of course, this administration shows continuing trends of supporting big business, and this is most definitely big business. If these select individuals have their way, SoundExchange will crush internet radio, Microsoft will attack freeware aficionados and linux users alike, all with the use of a new bill, or “package” as they said last week, that will act as an overseeing watchdog.
Last week, at the same time the Pentagon was planning to stop the planned return from Iraq of some 20,000 American troops, the same time the they were fighting over $100 billion that the democrats ended up giving, without enforcable bechmarks for the Iraq War, the Bush Adminstration announced it’s intentions to stiffen penalties for piracy, copyright infringement and those who “attempt” such acts.
Snippet from Wired link above
Essentially, the bill would turn copyright law into something more akin to existing drug laws: The government could seize personal property, wiretaps would become legal for the first time, violators could face life in prison and, in an ambiguous and far-reaching provision, the mere attempt to violate a copyright would become a crime.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales detailed their intentions himself almost 2 years ago at an anti-piracy summit. “Attempted Copyright Infringement” (pdf file) would forfeit any materials involved in an “attempt to infringe a copyright” to the US Government, and prosecute those who even just “attempted” such an act under harsher laws intended for those who successfully “infringe a copyright”. On May 14th they set the wheels in motion again sending a letter to Nance Pelosi outlining their intentions for the “Inellectual Property Protection Act of 2007″ (pdf file).
It’s a vague description of what could be sweeping restrictions across the internet for not only users and the traders, but for open source culture, for independent artists, designers, bloggers and anyone who could be construed as someone attempting to copyright intellectual property.
Is this a new witchhunt? They wouldn’t apply these laws unjustly, would they? What is construed as an “attempt”? This is scary language and territory. Foggy. This proposed bill introduces a much wider birth of individuals who could be prosecuted by an administration that ignores the constitution, invading the privacy of it’s citizens with illegal wiretapping programs, while disabling habeas corpus and freedom of speech.
But it’s not just this bill being introduced, it’s the bevy of proposed restrictions (pdf file) and reactions. An onslaught of legislation seen in the past couple of months peppered with major lawsuits and seasoned with quiet battles that you won’t hear about. A myriad of laws that will “attempt” to break the wave of the user friendly, open source culture before it crests into a massive tsunami. They are scared of innovation, and deny the new renaissance that destroys what luddites have fought so hard to build.
It’s symptomatic of the dedication that this administration has to acheiving it’s means by any means, consistently “attempting”, with scare tactics and bullying, to reinstate old useless laws under new titles to protect our “way of life”, which gets muddled and lost in legislation. Repatitive hyperbole and double speak. Freedom defined may very well be freedom denied, but castles made of sand wash into sea, eventually.
