RIAA’s Next Step: A $2 Million Gift From Taxpayers
They tried suing the software makers. It didn’t work. They tried suing the users. It didn’t work. What’s next?
Good old rent-seeking.
Senators Hatch and Leahy have introduced a bill that would allow the government to bring civil copyright infringement actions against users of P2P file sharing networks. In other words, it shifts the costs of civil copyright enforcement from copyright holders to taxpayers. The direct cost is $2 million dollars — a quick, easy $2 million wealth transfer to rent-seekers from society at large. Perhaps the larger cost is the further erosion of the public’s belief in the separation between government and big business.
Outrageously, Hatch claims that “public health and safety are put at risk” when you download that Chingy MP3. He claims that, “Public health and safety are also directly threatened by business models that tempt children toward piracy and pornography and then use them as ‘human shields’ against law enforcement.” Note the subject of that sentence: business models. Our children are at risk because of business models. Sending porn to kids is already illegal, as it should be; no further legislation is necessary. So take that out, and you have the claim that public health and safety are directly threatened by inducing children to commit copyright infringement.
Sure.
5 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
RSS Feed
Sen. Hatch as Strange Ally of Pornography Industry
Ernest Miller has a great take on the PIRATE act — he takes the most insightful comments from the net and goes on to postulate about Hatch being an ally to the pornography industry: Perhaps Hatch doesn’t realize this, but most pornography is copyrig…
Trackback by Mayhem & Chaos Blog — 1 April 2004 @ 18:07
Now that the music got here, I wanna take it.
Pragmatism.
All the rationalizing in the world won’t change theft into something other than theft.
Comment by Keith — 16 July 2004 @ 01:56
The RIAA represents companies who *own* the copy right on the music. People who “share” music are stealing it. Government protection for the victim of theft is not “rent seeking”. If a good example of “rent seeking” is the steel industry lobbying for high tarrifs on imported steel, this is not the same concept!
How did the music get here? Blank Out.
Comment by Keith — 16 July 2004 @ 02:01
The government is already providing protection for the victims of copyright infringement. They have created a private cause of action through which wronged copyright holders can recover damages from infringers.
The government also provides protection by prosecuting criminal copyright infringement.
Making the government not only prosecute criminal copyright infringement cases, but ALSO civil copyright infringement cases, is just a gift to the copyright holder who would otherwise have to expend resources to bring the civil suit himself. That’s just not how our system works. If we enter into a contract, say, and you breach that contract, it’s not right for the government to sue you on my behalf. What happened was between us, so I should have to bear the costs of bringing a breach of contract suit against you. Civil copyright infringement is the same way.
Comment by Joe Gratz — 16 July 2004 @ 11:33
Earlier today I asked
Earlier today I asked what the RIAA would do next, and Glenn Brown provided me with the answer just now: U.S. Declares War on Intellectual Property Theft LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department on Tuesday outlined what it called its most s…
Trackback by Mayhem & Chaos Blog — 12 October 2004 @ 22:08