Senate Creates Copyright Czar > Thank Bush for killing the "Govt suing infringers" part

reply to jc100

Re: Thank Bush for killing the "Govt suing infringers" part

Not my 10 car lot. it was an example. Law enforcement is there to protect COMMUNITY interests as a WHOLE. Police are NOT there to serve as 24/7 security to one individual. Look at it like this. Tax payers in X city foot the bill so police can patrol a city and stop crime. Yet, they DO NOT spend their entire day stationed at one area permanently. We are now paying for the RIAA at tax payers expense to have their OWN private police force that DO NOT do anything but handle intellectual property crimes. My example with the car deal is that the CITY POLICE are there to protect everyone's stuff. They are not just dedicated to the car dealer.

Hence, this is a mismanagement of tax payer money. It is the car dealer's job to set up security to protest HIS OWN INTERESTS. It is HIS BUSINESS after all. While the police patrol a neighborbood, he is not going to stay at that persons business every day all day. Hence, in this case, why should tax payers be footing the bill for the RIAA to have someone watching their stuff every day, all day, WHEN every other business does NOT get this luxury. Would you want tax payers to hire a cop for EVERY PRIVATE owned company so they EACH get 24/7 security too? Simply put, should Pizza Hut, McDonalds, and every millions of other corporations get a private cop stationed 24/7 to make sure no one robs or steals? I bet you'd say no. So show me why the RIAA does.

IP is a concern for more than just the RIAA. Take your blinders off and expand your vision a little.

Following on your auto dealership example, does the owner of the dealership have authority to pursue and punish a perpetrator that takes one of his/her vehicles without permission? No, that's what law enforcement is for. Sure, it is incumbent upon the dealership owner to maintain a security system to deter theft, but I can't think of any security system that will prevent theft. Allowing individuals to pursue and punish perpetrators leads to lawlessness, disorder and with international IP concerns, almost impossible recourse.

Actually IP is no different. Your IP should only be obtained if through a COURT order and a crime proven. Rulings by recent courts have shown that MAKING AVAILABLE is NOT a crime. One must prove downloading occurred. The RIAA has yet to win a single case now. All their wins have been out of court settlements. As for other crimes, I've got no problems using the CURRENT legal channels. FBI obtains court order. However, the FBI should NOT be working to serve the interests of ONE GROUP/

As per car dealer example, you miss the point. Cops are CITY officials paid to protect everyone. THey are NOT there to sit at EVERY BUSINESS 24/7 as personal security to EVERY business. Tax payers wouldn't appreciate if Pizza Hut, McDonalds, etc each had their OWN full day cop at TAX PAYERS expense. As per leaving the lot, YES the dealer own COULD follow and make a citizens arrest. Otherwise, he could shoot the dumb fuck for trespassing depending on the state where he / she lives.

reply to openbox9

reply to jc100
I'm glad you expanded your vision beyond the RIAA.

Back to the car dealership. Law enforcement exists to maintain peace and protect life and property. As such, law enforcement agencies will protect the car dealership to the greatest extent possible. It is still incumbent on the dealership to protect their assets as much as possible, e.g. security cameras, private security, etc. But in the event that the dealership's security measures aren't sufficient, engaging a law enforcement agency is necessary to retrieve the property and prosecute those who have taken it without permission.

Have you ever made a citizen's arrest? I wouldn't place the security of the dealership's vehicles in a citizen's arrest. As for "shooting the dumb fuck", that's great if you don't mind going to prison for manslaughter.

reply to jc100
IP = intellectual property, JC. Try to follow along with the class

Sorry misread. Point stands. Intellectual Property DOES NOT need a CZAR. Do all private businesses need a Police / Czar. Shit, why not give Pizza Hut / Fast food Industry a Food Czar to make sure no one uses their logo. Why not give all car dealers a car czar to make sure their cars aren't stolen. I mean hell, let's be frivolous with tax payer money and cut blank checks for all. I think EVERYONE needs security and the tax payers should foot the bill. Who's with me (sarcasm).

reply to openbox9
A) Yes and no. First, law enforcement is there to protect the GENERAL community as a whole. He / She does NOT sit in one spot and serve as 24/7 security to one entity. Their job as police is to POLICE the city they work for. Now, if they wish to moonlight as private security on their off time, they are welcome to. Yet, when tax payers foot the bill, their job is NOT to serve private / corporate interests. Would you want your cops taking free meals from restaurants, discounts from stores, etc. I think that would give an air of bias. So why should tax payers be footing the bill for the RIAA / MPAA to go after people using OUR MONEY. It's their business. Now if a crime is committed, they should report it to the FBI. You ever see that nice little logo on a DVD? Their job is to handle this matter. Now, I am sure they got better things to do, but it is still their job. Tax payers don't need to make other departments to serve Corporate interests.

As I said above, should we have a Fast Food Restaurant Czar to ensure fast food joints aren't robbed and no one uses their logos? Should car dealers get a Car Czar to make sure their vehicles are not stolen or subject to theft? Hell, the tax payers are a cash cow. Let's fund EVERYONE who cannot work to serve their own needs. Why have private corporations if tax payers are LEFT WITH THE BILL. IE 700 Billion economy bail out. This merger of OUR (Tax Payer interests) and Corporate seems to be blurring together. I DONT RECALL HAVING A HAND IN THEIR BUSINESS or SEEING the profits. Now if the MPAA / RIAA want to cut each and every tax payer a check + interest in the future, then that would be a different story. Until then, my money shouldn't be used to serve theirs or anyone elses interests.

As for a citizen's arrest, they are perfectly legal. Have I made one no. Is shooting the "dumb fuck" legal, YES. I'm from Ohio and our law says if anyone breaks into your property, you have a right to protect it. Now, I moved to Texas and the laws here are a LOT MORE RELAXED. You trespass onto someone's property, (don't even have to enter a building, just be on the grass), and THEY HAVE 100 percent legal right to take your life. I said it once, and I'll say it twice, every state is different. Yet, most afford you the right to protect your own property. This moral and ethical argument behind this is another matter. I'm just stating the law as it is in the two places I've lived.

You do realize that the FBI is taxpayer funded and does not exist merely to "sit in one spot and serve as 24/7 security to one entity".

You're missing the bigger picture. Just as the $700B economic plan serves a much larger role than bailing out a few banks, protecting IP interests in the US and around the world serves a much larger economic role than placing money in the **AA executives' pockets.

reply to openbox9

reply to openbox9
The FBI is tax payer funded and WORKS all security. That's my point open box. They are not dedicated to ONE ENTITY. Why should ONE BUSINESS get 24/7 protection when no other industry is afford that luxury.

Also, I realize it has to do with a bigger picture. The point still stands. Should Pizza Hut / Mcdonalds get a food Czar to protect their interest? Should the Porn interest have a Smut Czar? All these contribute to the economy as well. Tax payers do not need to be funding MORE programs, especially if their purpose is to serve a SINGLE industry versus that of everyone. Let's face it, this is being created SOLELY for the MPAA / RIAA.

You still aren't grasping the fact that this new IPEC position will work to protect more than one business. Pizza Hut and McDonald's have the FDA which is different, but does mandate and protect the industry. The porn industry would fall under the IPEC since porn is copyrighted. The IPEC does not solely protect the MPAA or the RIAA. At least you expanded your vision beyond the RIAA, but you need to expand it further.

I do agree with your statement that taxpayers do not need to fund more government. I do believe that we should be reducing the government's size and rid it of waste.

reply to major marco

reply to openbox9
No grasping for straws. FDA regulates ALL FOOD whether from a restaurant or private company. Their job is to ENSURE that food is safe to it, not that it tastes good. Their job isn't go around to Pizza Hut, McDonalds, and say this stuff is good. Also their job IS NOT to hold anyone who might be stealing their recipe accountable. Simply put, the FDA just makes sure you WON'T DIE from what you eat. There's no grasping for anything.

As for the porn industry, their job is to protect copyright and the actors. However, they work FOR the industry as a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION. The same as the MPAA / RIAA. Neither are government funded.

See how you are missing the point? Why shouldn't these organizations FUND THEIR OWN POLICE / Copyright Czars instead of the tax payer footing the bill. Notice once again, these organizations are FUNDED BY THE INDUSTRY THEMSELVES. So their enforcement should stay that way and NOT BURDEN tax payers.

I think you were missing the ENTIRE POINT and did a fantastic job of proving mine.

I said the FDA was different. I won't argue that point.

The porn industry will find protection under the IPEC. Your previous comment was "should the porn interest have a smut czar?" and my retort was that they will with IPEC.

If you think I missed my point and proved yours, then our discussion is done.

reply to jc100
Yep, you are correct sir.

That is why we have something called private security guards and not public police to do the dirty work for the private corps.