4 ms·

Does anyone know if there is data somewhere on how much money has been spent by governments (specifically the USA) on attacking copyright related stuff? My mai

by jerrac 10y ago

Does anyone know if there is data somewhere on how much money has been spent by governments (specifically the USA) on attacking copyright related stuff? My main complaint about this is that I'd rather my tax dollars be spent stopping crime that causes physical harm.

MichaelBurge 10y ago
You're free to ask your congressmen to change the copyright laws. Until then, they should be enforced: Having some manager deprioritize certain crimes because he thinks they're too expensive to enforce moves power from the legislative to the executive. You didn't directly make this distinction, but your point about preferring to allocate tax dollars to physical crimes would be a strange way to view changing the law.
- jerrac 10y ago
  Deciding how to enforce and execute the law is the job of the Executive branch. That, by necessity, requires prioritizing. The only exception is if the law actually prioritizes itself. If we the people don't like how the law is executed, we can try to get the Legislature to pass a law that forces the Executive branch to do it our way. Or we can elect a President or Governor who agrees with us.
- redblacktree 10y ago
  Enforcement priorities are never equal. There are a lot of laws still on the books that no one cares about, so they haven't bothered to repeal them. It's naive to think that all laws are always enforced equally all the time. It's an impossible ideal.
- bduerst 10y ago
  What a strange, strange straw man to knock down, especially since they were just asking for more data and explaining why they were curious.
- ionised 10y ago
  Your congressman is most likely accepting large sums of money from companies supporting these draconian laws. Sums you can never hope to compete with. So break these laws. Break them as much as is possible. Convince others to do the same. Civil disobedience is the engine of progress.
  - MichaelBurge 10y ago
    If you have a concrete example of this occurring, then consider whether it's bribery: 18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses "directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person; " My understanding is that prosecutors would be heavily incentivized to find an underground bribery operation on Congressmen; it would be a career-making move, and they could make press releases to everyone. People clearly care about corruption and bribery, as evidenced by this election cycle. The commenters in this subthread have already agreed that it is good to give prosecutors extensive leeway in prosecuting crimes, or even deciding whether something is a crime. And in this particular case, the incentives line up. So it seems unlikely that congressmen are engaging in outright bribery, with the prosecutors letting them get away with it. Again, if you know something that the prosecutors don't, you can contact your state Attorney General to report a crime. They would probably at least open up an investigation. For example, it looks like 5 Congressmen have been prosecuted over the last year alone, so they're hardly immune to the law: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/dem-congressman-convicted-federal-corruption-charges http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/dem-congressman-conv... Additionally, the FCPA makes it a crime for US companies to bribe foreign officials(such as in the Ukraine, where this article's criminal seems to be based). I've had to sit through 3-4 of these anti-corruption seminars, and it sure seems like another law that prosecutors would love to follow up on. My guess is that the lobbyists are simply more persuasive, and seem to care about the law a lot more than the other types of people who comment on the law.
MichaelBurge 10y ago
In this case, it looks like it went through the ICE since it was an international crime. I can't find a budget newer than 2012, but all of their international investigations combined were $115 million in 2012 so that should be an upper bound for cases like this one. https://www.ice.gov/factsheets/budget2012 https://www.ice.gov/factsheets/budget2012 I would suspect that purely domestic crimes are usually handled through the courts. For example, I don't recall the RIAA trying to get individuals prosecuted for crimes nearly as often as them suing people.
Const-me 10y ago
Governments also collect many tax dollars from companies who profit from that IP. That’s exactly why US government is most active in that area. They collect taxes from US-based film studios (all mayor are US-based, five of them are in California, NBC in NY, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_film_studio#Current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_film_studio#Current) and software companies.
- jerrac 10y ago
  True. But I'd still rather law enforcement focus on crime that might kill me, than on crime that might take a few cents out of a rich persons pocket. I mean, are my tax dollars only spent on issues that directly effect my business?

by jerrac 10y ago

MichaelBurge 10y ago

You're free to ask your congressmen to change the copyright laws. Until then, they should be enforced: Having some manager deprioritize certain crimes because he thinks they're too expensive to enforce moves power from the legislative to the executive. You didn't directly make this distinction, but your point about preferring to allocate tax dollars to physical crimes would be a strange way to view changing the law.

jerrac 10y ago
Deciding how to enforce and execute the law is the job of the Executive branch. That, by necessity, requires prioritizing. The only exception is if the law actually prioritizes itself. If we the people don't like how the law is executed, we can try to get the Legislature to pass a law that forces the Executive branch to do it our way. Or we can elect a President or Governor who agrees with us.
redblacktree 10y ago
Enforcement priorities are never equal. There are a lot of laws still on the books that no one cares about, so they haven't bothered to repeal them. It's naive to think that all laws are always enforced equally all the time. It's an impossible ideal.
bduerst 10y ago
What a strange, strange straw man to knock down, especially since they were just asking for more data and explaining why they were curious.
ionised 10y ago
Your congressman is most likely accepting large sums of money from companies supporting these draconian laws. Sums you can never hope to compete with. So break these laws. Break them as much as is possible. Convince others to do the same. Civil disobedience is the engine of progress.
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  If you have a concrete example of this occurring, then consider whether it's bribery: 18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses "directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person; " My understanding is that prosecutors would be heavily incentivized to find an underground bribery operation on Congressmen; it would be a career-making move, and they could make press releases to everyone. People clearly care about corruption and bribery, as evidenced by this election cycle. The commenters in this subthread have already agreed that it is good to give prosecutors extensive leeway in prosecuting crimes, or even deciding whether something is a crime. And in this particular case, the incentives line up. So it seems unlikely that congressmen are engaging in outright bribery, with the prosecutors letting them get away with it. Again, if you know something that the prosecutors don't, you can contact your state Attorney General to report a crime. They would probably at least open up an investigation. For example, it looks like 5 Congressmen have been prosecuted over the last year alone, so they're hardly immune to the law: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/dem-congressman-convicted-federal-corruption-charges http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/dem-congressman-conv... Additionally, the FCPA makes it a crime for US companies to bribe foreign officials(such as in the Ukraine, where this article's criminal seems to be based). I've had to sit through 3-4 of these anti-corruption seminars, and it sure seems like another law that prosecutors would love to follow up on. My guess is that the lobbyists are simply more persuasive, and seem to care about the law a lot more than the other types of people who comment on the law.

MichaelBurge 10y ago

In this case, it looks like it went through the ICE since it was an international crime. I can't find a budget newer than 2012, but all of their international investigations combined were $115 million in 2012 so that should be an upper bound for cases like this one. https://www.ice.gov/factsheets/budget2012 https://www.ice.gov/factsheets/budget2012 I would suspect that purely domestic crimes are usually handled through the courts. For example, I don't recall the RIAA trying to get individuals prosecuted for crimes nearly as often as them suing people.

Const-me 10y ago

Governments also collect many tax dollars from companies who profit from that IP. That’s exactly why US government is most active in that area. They collect taxes from US-based film studios (all mayor are US-based, five of them are in California, NBC in NY, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_film_studio#Current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_film_studio#Current) and software companies.

jerrac 10y ago
True. But I'd still rather law enforcement focus on crime that might kill me, than on crime that might take a few cents out of a rich persons pocket. I mean, are my tax dollars only spent on issues that directly effect my business?