Well I thought it's pretty obvious that I was referring to your post but there you go, at least you found an excuse to accuse me of something unsavoury so I am happy for you.
Now, back to the matter in hand. This from the article originally linked to -
• Under federal law, wiretaps may only be conducted in investigations of serious crimes, a list that was expanded by the 2001 Patriot Act to include offenses such as material support of terrorism and use of weapons of mass destruction. The administration is proposing to add copyright and trademark infringement, arguing that move "would assist U.S. law enforcement agencies to effectively investigate those offenses."
You quote the “serious crime” language from the article.
If someone steals my car, that’s a felony. If the police have sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that a certain person was involved, search warrants and wiretaps may be in order.
By the same token, if it should be discovered that there is a conspiracy to steal my car, search warrants and wiretaps may be in order if evidence establishes probable cause that certain persons are conspiring to commit this crime.
A felony is a “serious crime.” But, in the scheme of things, the theft of my car is not a very weighty matter. Unless I was an important person, which I’m not.
My car is worth maybe $14,000. But what is the SuperBowl worth? If someone captured that and streamed it for free, or a modest charge, how much would have been stolen from the holders of the copyright for that event? Quite a bit. Maybe more than $14,000.
The web is ablaze with stories of “32-year-old Texan Bryan McCarthy,” who was arrested for criminal copyright infringement for his alleged operations at ChannelSurfing.net. McCarthy was charged with criminal copyright infringement for “reproduction and distribution” of copyrighted material. He was convicted it seems.
The rhetorical question is repeated in the reports of McCarthy’s plight that if he “streamed” and that’s a criminal offense already, why is a change in the law required?
Because courts don’t write statutes, they just interpret them. What a Texas court finds to be a one crime, a New Hampshire court may see as a different one. Unguided by a statute that plainly defines the activity, courts can come to widely different conclusions based on the widely different arguments and evidence presented to them.
As you said, “a fundamental rethink and appraisal of copyright law and the use of the net as a distribution medium is required.” You’re right. And that’s what Obama’s proposal seeks to do.
But is also seeks legislative action on economic espionage and drug offenses, particularly counterfeit drugs that violate a manufacturer’s patent rights.
The proposal will be discussed and debated and massaged and worked over and beat up in Congress and hearings will be held. Or it may not be considered at all. It’s not a presidential edict, after all.
