Cato Unbound: Towards a Copyriot Act

by on June 16, 2008 · 6 comments

Cato Unbound today published my reaction to Rasmus Fleisher’s lead essay on the future of copyright. My essay, titled Towards a Copyriot Act—and Away from it, Again, describes “another future for copyright, one in which lawmakers impose crushing penalties to discourage rampant infringement.” It begins by asking readers to put themselves in the shoes of a Hollwood executive, one who says,

“The police need to fire a few shots over the infringers’ heads. And if the looting continues, they should shoot some of the looters. That may sound severe, but we face a breakdown of civil order. After all, wouldn’t police — or perhaps the National Guard — do the same if mobs threatened to take over Wall Street, Rodeo Drive, or Constitution Avenue? Hollywood deserves the same protection. The time has come to get tough on infringement. The Copyright Act’s mild remedies evidently do not suffice. We need a Copyriot Act!”,
Cato Unbound will next host a series of brief exchanges between Fleischer and we three who responded to his lead essay. Check The Future of Copyright issue for that debate, as well as all of the essays.

[Crossposted at Agoraphilia and Technology Liberation Front.]

SHARE: 6 comments

About Tom W. Bell

Tom W. Bell teaches as a professor at Chapman University School of Law, in Orange County, California. He specializes in intellectual property and high-tech law, topics on which he has written a variety of articles. After earning his J.D. from the University of Chicago School of Law, Prof. Bell practiced law in Silicon Valley and Washington, D.C., served as Director of Telecommunications and Technology Studies at the Cato Institute, and joined the Chapman faculty in 1998. For fun, he surfs, plays guitar, and goofs around with his kids.

Read more articles by Tom W. Bell.

  • http://linuxworld.com/community/ Don Marti

    Good point on the “dread risks” — so why are copyright holders scattering thousands of letters around, demanding 3 grand, when they could be finding one unsympathetic defendant (rich frat boy who could have easily paid for his collection?) and nailing him to the wall for a couple million in statutory damages? A little online PI work would help match IP address to Facebook account and so on.

    Antispammers are better at picking out poster boy spammers than copyright holders are at picking out poster boy defendants.

    (The likely reason for the lameness with which copyright holder go after actual infringers is that generation after generation of DRM snake-oil sellers keep selling them on the idea that next year, the infringement isn’t going to be technically possible, so no need to put your best people to work on smacking today’s infringers.)

  • dmarti

    Good point on the “dread risks” — so why are copyright holders scattering thousands of letters around, demanding 3 grand, when they could be finding one unsympathetic defendant (rich frat boy who could have easily paid for his collection?) and nailing him to the wall for a couple million in statutory damages? A little online PI work would help match IP address to Facebook account and so on.

    Antispammers are better at picking out poster boy spammers than copyright holders are at picking out poster boy defendants.

    (The likely reason for the lameness with which copyright holder go after actual infringers is that generation after generation of DRM snake-oil sellers keep selling them on the idea that next year, the infringement isn’t going to be technically possible, so no need to put your best people to work on smacking today’s infringers.)

  • http://www2.blogger.com/profile/14380731108416527657 Steve R.

    Over at Ed Foster’s Gripeline Ed has an article “Spyware bill cloaks a mini-UCITA”. While the subject is not copyright, this article reflects the increasing demands of corporations (especially those companies involved in copyright) to assume “police powers” to take unilateral action against anyone they designate as an infringer. Indicative of this trend, Ed Felton even wrote an article “Study Shows DMCA Takedowns Based on Inconclusive Evidence”

    Similar to what I have previously expressed concerning the blatant disregard of corporation concerning “due process”; Art Butler (an attorney representing Americans for Fair Electronic Commerce Transactions (AFFECT)) stated in regards to Section 6(a) of S. 1625 — the Counter Spy Act that “It would allow the provider to set itself up as an ad hoc police force to conduct warrantless searches and to act as judge and jury to conduct unilateral seizures. Private entities do not and should not have the right to conduct law enforcement activities. More troubling is the fact that the language of Subsection 6(a)(10) would effectively allow a software provider to unilaterally decide to remotely shut down the user’s computer or Internet or other network connection or service. But whether the use of a particular software is ‘unauthorized,’ ‘fraudulent,’ or ‘illegal’ is often subject to legitimate dispute and merits some judicial consideration before a provider is allowed to unilaterally employ a drastic remedy like remote disablement.”

  • http://www2.blogger.com/profile/14380731108416527657 Steve R.

    Over at Ed Foster’s Gripeline Ed has an article “Spyware bill cloaks a mini-UCITA”. While the subject is not copyright, this article reflects the increasing demands of corporations (especially those companies involved in copyright) to assume “police powers” to take unilateral action against anyone they designate as an infringer. Indicative of this trend, Ed Felton even wrote an article “Study Shows DMCA Takedowns Based on Inconclusive Evidence”

    Similar to what I have previously expressed concerning the blatant disregard of corporation concerning “due process”; Art Butler (an attorney representing Americans for Fair Electronic Commerce Transactions (AFFECT)) stated in regards to Section 6(a) of S. 1625 — the Counter Spy Act that “It would allow the provider to set itself up as an ad hoc police force to conduct warrantless searches and to act as judge and jury to conduct unilateral seizures. Private entities do not and should not have the right to conduct law enforcement activities. More troubling is the fact that the language of Subsection 6(a)(10) would effectively allow a software provider to unilaterally decide to remotely shut down the user’s computer or Internet or other network connection or service. But whether the use of a particular software is ‘unauthorized,’ ‘fraudulent,’ or ‘illegal’ is often subject to legitimate dispute and merits some judicial consideration before a provider is allowed to unilaterally employ a drastic remedy like remote disablement.”

  • Jamalystic

    The internet has certainly make copyright a very contentious and divisive issue. It seems both sides of the debate have very strong cases.Andrew Keen’s piece on this issue is alos worth mentioning: Why ‘Rethinking’ Copyright Law is a Huge Mistake( http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=556&doc_id=155800&F_src=flftwo) It would be nice to se how this debate ensue because the future of the internet certainly hinges on this copyright stuff???

  • Jamalystic

    The internet has certainly make copyright a very contentious and divisive issue. It seems both sides of the debate have very strong cases.Andrew Keen’s piece on this issue is alos worth mentioning: Why ‘Rethinking’ Copyright Law is a Huge Mistake( http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?sec…) It would be nice to se how this debate ensue because the future of the internet certainly hinges on this copyright stuff???

Previous post:

Next post: