FBI Prioritizes Copyright Over Missing Persons 372
An anonymous reader writes "The FBI has limited resources, so it needs to prioritize what it works on. However, it's difficult to see why dealing with copyright infringement seems to get more attention than identity theft or missing persons. In the past year, the FBI has announced a special new task force to fight intellectual property infringement, but recent reports have shown that both identity theft and missing persons have been downgraded as priorities by the FBI, to the point that there are a backlog of such cases."
Elementary my dear Watson (Score:5, Insightful)
The FBI exists to protect profits. In fact the government exists to protect commerce, the very basis of our society
Re:Elementary my dear Watson (Score:5, Funny)
Precisely. Missing people don't pay their bills.
Re:Elementary my dear Watson (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, alternatively, missing people do not have a powerful lobby. Well, MIAs in Vietnam had one, but that's about it. It's a bit disturbing though to see how far corporate support goes in shaping priorities. Or the priorities of the American President. Obama's and Biden's hard-on for IP isn't helping.
Re:Elementary my dear Watson (Score:5, Insightful)
Put another way:
There's no money in solving actual crimes. On the other hand, doing the dirty work of the MafiAA is a way to collect some kick-ass bribes.
Re:Elementary my dear Watson (Score:5, Interesting)
There's no money in solving actual crimes. On the other hand, doing the dirty work of the MafiAA is a way to collect some kick-ass bribes.
The entertainment industry is worth billions of domestic spending and export dollars. It is a labor-intensive and generates a lot of high wage - high skilled - jobs.
It is important to the economies of states like New York, California, Florida and so on. The Senator from Nebraska votes wheat and corn. The Texan cattle and oil.
Think interests not bribes.
Re:Elementary my dear Watson (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Elementary my dear Watson (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the same government that let outsourcing happen. Why should they care about one industry and let entire sectors like manufacuring be lost?
I tell you. Entertainment has the double role of propaganda (proposing models for our youth, so they think they're against the system by spraying paint on walls or paying to get brain and ear damage, and measuring art and success in terms of $$$), and the trojan horse to push for IP laws. Intellectual property is just the big guys excuse to transform the virtual world into a market: in a purely virtual world a startup can compete with estabilished giants. When IP laws shape it, though, being first and being bigger begins to offer an advantage again like scale economy and banks covering your ass do in the real world.
Re:Elementary my dear Watson (Score:5, Funny)
So, is it "MaFBIaa" now?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Elementary my dear Watson (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It was because during the push across the Rhine the Germans, desperate to slow us down, actually used the FLAK 88 as an antipersonnel weapon, like a civil war cannon.
As an aside, the 88 gun [wikipedia.org] was one of the most flexible pieces of military hardware in the Second World War. You could shoot just about anything with it. I imagine they were shooting people with it long before they got to the above level of desperation.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Elementary my dear Watson (Score:5, Insightful)
Nixon pledged $3.25 billion in “postwar reconstruction” aid, congress did not seem to be interested in spending anymore.
No aid, no POWs. France paid up after Dien Bien Phu.
Every US gov seems not to want to admit they left them behind, so the cover up goes on. Better the fog of war than the reality of been left to rot.
The FBI might face the same with missing persons. Start digging and they find slavery, cults, sweatshop, sex trade and the deep state and federal links that cover/protect year after year.
Generation profit and evil.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Simple, accuse the missing person of copyright infringement, rat them out to the RIAA and MPAA,
and you'll have them back in no time.
Re:Elementary my dear Watson (Score:5, Interesting)
For quite a while, they have had significant interest in high dollar crimes, versus no dollar crimes. A missing person is a missing person. Unless they are a high profile person (celebrity, politician, or wanted fugitive in the media), there is little to no interest.
I do recall a few instances (personal knowledge, not from the media) where there was a crime committed. They did involve a financial loss. About 15 years ago, the amount had to be greater than $3,000. About 4 or 5 years ago, the amount had to be greater than $6,500.
If, for example, someone broke into a large network, which incurred a large dollar amount of damages (securing equipment, changes of company security protocol, recovery of lost data from backups, loss of income due to media coverage), that's a big deal. High dollar companies always donate well to political parties. While it makes the news that Company X donated to a particular politician, you'll likely find that they did the same to all politicians. Businesses don't usually gamble on anything as unpredictable as elections. They'll play all sides to ensure they are covered. Donations to the wrong people are just considered part of playing the game.
Compare that to say a serial killer who has killed 3 people in the last 5 years, and those victims were not well politically tied to anyone. The interest level goes down to almost nil.
There was a bit of activity regarding a known serial killer activity [latimes.com]. It likely involved 500 female victims. Wow, 500 women killed by serial killers, they'll surely put everyone they can on it. The last update was in 2009, and in 5 years there were 10 suspects in custody, suspected to be involved in 30 murders [fbi.gov]. Have you heard any updates on this? "Suspects" in custody does not mean the killers are in custody. They're just people who they believe may be the killers. Meanwhile, the murders continue.
It isn't due to mismanagement of resources exactly. Companies lean on their political "friends". The politicians then lean on the FBI, and the work gets done. While this should be considered mismanagement, the FBI is a government organization, and political pressures do come into play. Sure, if my company just lost $100 million dollars, I'd prefer the FBI take that over another case, but it shouldn't work that way. I, a multibillion dollar firm (I wish), may need to remind a few Congressmen that they are in office because of my huge donations, and my case will get priority.
Political pressures aren't the only ones they are under. High profile media cases get handled differently. A friend of mine was a victim of a Nigerian scam. It was a high dollar case. First I laughed at them for being stupid. There was an exception to the normal case though. The scammer was still in communications with them, and they hadn't told the scammer that they figured out what happened. They called the local FBI field office, and their statement was taken. A couple weeks went by, and nothing had happened with the case.
I pulled a couple strings, and I asked a media outlet to make a friendly request that it be looked at further. The media outlet was very friendly about it. They simply sent an email over saying "Please have a look at this. We understand the difficulties in prosecuting such a case. If you do manage to make an arrest, we would love to publish the story. If not, we won't run anything about it." They mentioned a bit more about the information on the case, and that the scammer was still in contact asking for more. My friend got a call at 9am from a FBI investigator, and they were at my friends house later that day (agreed upon by my friend). Emails between the parties were gathered (with consent, not warrants). My fir. A voluntary tap
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ironically, with the tax breaks corporations get, they don't pay much of the bill either. Of course, they finance the government in a less direct way via campaign donations.
so that bigger then going after rapist in DNA lab (Score:2)
so that is bigger then going after rapist in the DNA lab?
Re:so that bigger then going after rapist in DNA l (Score:5, Insightful)
Their DNA lab is so backed up, they can't effectively pursue any violent criminals, so evil copyright violators are the low-hanging fruit.
This is the "change" we voted for?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because he's a black democrat doesn't mean that every bad thing that happens is his fault. I know it's hard for you to understand.
Re:so that bigger then going after rapist in DNA l (Score:5, Insightful)
People love blaming inherited problems on the person currently in power. Just watch Fox News. No, not for news, but to see how someone can spin anything to blame the wrong party, and then have die hard followers repeating the same garbage.
I only include Fox News because they are one of many sources that do the same thing. The list of counterproductive spin doctors is far too long to list.
Re:so that bigger then going after rapist in DNA l (Score:5, Insightful)
How does finding rapists and prosecuting them help corporate profits and the economy at large? Women who are raped should just go home and take a shower and get over it, and get back to work so their employer doesn't suffer any loss of profit.
(in case it wasn't obvious)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dammit, I enclosed my (/sarcasm) tag in brackets and it disappeared.
And now, stupid Slashdot is telling me I'm posting comments too quickly.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And remember to hit preview.
How can I forgot to hit preview? It's required before you can post the comment.
Re:so that bigger then going after rapist in DNA l (Score:5, Insightful)
How does finding rapists and prosecuting them help corporate profits and the economy at large?
Rape is almost never prosecuted in the federal courts.
It is extraordinarilly rare for any crime of violence to be prosecuted in the federal courts.
What you are really asking for is a national forensic lab and a massive DNA database managed by the FBI.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
Political power, then, I take to be a right of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws, and in the defence of the common-wealth from foreign injury; and all this only for the public good.
--- John Locke, 2nd Treatise of Gov't vis-a-vis US Const, 5th and 14th Amendments.
The argument then becomes whether ideas can be property. The US Constitution, by implication, says no - "Writings and Discoveries" are an "exclusive right" only for a "limited time," a clear statement that "intellectual property" is not property at all, but a limited and artificially constructed grant of rights.
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, the law of property -- at least for everything beyond what the owner can personally defend against the world by means of force -- is also one of limited and artificially constructed grants of rights. Which isn't to say that copyrights are a branch of property law, but rather that property rights are just as artificial.
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Interesting)
the grass my horse has bit; the turfs my servant has cut; and the ore I have digged in any place, where I have a right to them in common with others, become my property, without the assignation or consent of any body. The labour that was mine, removing them out of that common state they were in, hath fixed my property in them ... The only way whereby
any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of
civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a
community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst
another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security
against any, that are not of it. ... The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.
---Locke, ibid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To some degree I have to disagree with you in the sense that "property" has always existed and have always been defended by [threat of] force. Adding force of law behind it actually serves to limit the amount and type of force allowed when protecting one's property. In Texas, I can't shoot a man on my front porch, but I can shoot a man in my home. So if I shoot a man in my home and he flies out the door, I had best drag him back in before the police arrive. Also, if someone is outside messing with my ca
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One could make the case that the notion of property for physical things is natural - "I have aquired/received it therefore it's mine". How many times have you heard small kids fight about something and one of them says "It's mine, it's mine".
From the notion of property (aka ownership) in the physical realm to the notion of property rights (aka being entitled to control what is done with one's things and choosing if/when/how to part with them) is a natural evolution: it's simply a mechanism to avoid conflict
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, the right of free speech - at least for everything beyond what the owner can personally defend against the world by means of force -- is also one of limited and artificially constructed grants of rights. Which isn't to say that property law is a branch of speech laws, but rather that free speech rights are just as artificial.
FTFY
YW :)
The Constitution of the USA is not based on such a premise. If it is the USA of which you speak, then you make a fundamental error. The basis of it is not that rights can be granted. The basis of it is that we have inalienable rights because we are human beings. We have those rights merely because we exist. The purpose of governemnt, then, is to recognize and protect those rights. That's the reason we have a legal system. Such rights are absolutely not "granted" or "given" but are merely acknowledged and honored.
The only way things can be "artificial" is if you have a model of feudalism where there is a poltiical elite which holds all the power. Otherwise there is the rule of law where all people are equal in the eyes of the law and all have the same fundamentl rights.
That's what is missing from the "living document" view of the Constitution. To folks who hold such a view, phrases like "shall not be infringed" are ambiguous and open to interpretation. I reject this viewpoint entirely.
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Interesting)
It is odd how "intellectual property" has come commonly to be misapplied to copyrighted works. I'm not sure whether it is due to an intentional propaganda campaign, or just careless speaking. The works themselves are not property. What is property is the copyright. So no, the argument is not whether ideas can be property. Even those who support copyright, if knowledgeable about the Constitution and the law, do not claim that ideas are property. I fully agree with you that a copyright is a limited and artificial monopoly, but it nonetheless bears all the characteristics of property (for which see any introduction to property law), however artificial and unjust you and I may agree it to be.
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Elementary my dear Watson (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Elementary my dear Watson (Score:4, Insightful)
Protecting "people" is purely an ancillary benefit, as they are more productive if they feel secure and content. The protection of commerce is hardly a recent phenomenon, that of commercial slave trade up until 1860 being a good example. Here again we see the government protecting the property owners above all else at that time also.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the US Government was a limited social contract to secure Life, Liberty, and Property.
Re:Elementary my dear Watson (Score:5, Interesting)
Who still doesn't believe our government is being run by corporate power?
As far back as the Franklin Roosevelt administration, in 1933, when it looked for a minute like the US government might actually start putting people ahead of corporate interests, a group of men, owners of some of our largest industries, including the grandfather of George W. Bush plotted to over throw and replace him with a pro-corporate Fascist regime. A rogue general, Douglas McArthur's name was floated as the leader of the new fascist regime. It became known as the "Business Conspiracy" or "The White House Putsch". It was later dismissed by the American Right as "just cocktail chatter" but enough evidence exists to give the story historical "legs".
Now, of course, an easier way has been found to accomplish the same thing. A simple Supreme Court case giving corporations unlimited political power by creating a new entity, the non-human person. There was an attempt by the legislative branch to attenuate the effects of this unusual and precedent-breaking case, called the DISCLOSE Act, which would require corporations who spend these unlimited funds to identify themselves, as candidates currently do on their campaign ads, and it almost passed, but was filibustered by Republicans.
It's an interesting story, the "corporate coup of 1933" with more than a few similarities to our current situation. A good book about it is Maverick Marine: General Smedley D. Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History by Hans Schmidt, University Press of Kentucky, ISBN 0-8131-0957-4.
Re:Elementary my dear Watson (Score:4, Insightful)
Who still doesn't believe our government is being run by corporate power?
I don't. I do believe our entire society is powered by groups of people. That sounds like "corporate power" to me.
Bzzzt. A group of people doesn't exercise its power like a corporation. If you are an employee of a corporation or even a small shareholder, you don't have a say and you often don't even know what's going on during old boys golf outings. A 'group' of people may be more democratic, but you left out how that group is managed.
Federalism 101 (Score:5, Informative)
The FBI exists to protect profits. In fact the government exists to protect commerce, the very basis of our society
In the American federal system, tracking down missing persons is traditionally a local and state responsibility, prosecuting economic and property crimes that have a national and constitutiobal dimension a federal responsibility.
The FBI has 60 active Kidnapping and Missing Persons Investigations [fbi.gov]
This may give a clearer idea of how small the FBI role in such cases really is.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I shit you not. Not in the least. It involved the transfer of technology to a foreign country in direct violation of a number of federal laws. There was an email that an o
Getting found is as easy as torrenttorrenttorrent (Score:5, Funny)
If you are a missing person please press 1 now... (Score:5, Funny)
At the FBI, we take customer service seriously.
Missing persons who wish to file a customer service complaint can contact us via telephone, email or postal address:
http://www.fbi.gov/contactus.htm [fbi.gov]
We value your feedback. Have a nice day.
Re:Getting found is as easy as torrenttorrenttorre (Score:5, Funny)
Uh... (Score:3, Informative)
37 CFR 202.1:
Material not subject to copyright.
The following are examples of works not subject to copyright and applications for registration of such works cannot be entertained:
...
(e) Typeface as typeface.
The economy is in the tank (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The economy is in the tank (Score:5, Interesting)
The economy is shit precisely because of intellectual property. China will never buy IP - why would they? They can pirate all they want as US police have no jurisdiction. So anyone who produces IP, instead of things that can be exported, represents a net loss of wealth to the country - they take money *only* from other Americans, while spending that money all over the world.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So anyone who produces IP, instead of things that can be exported, represents a net loss of wealth to the country - they take money *only* from other Americans, while spending that money all over the world.
What does the US economy more good - buying a movie made by Americans or buying cheap imports from China? Reducing imports by producing something valuable domestically is just as important as increasing exports if you want to reach a trade balance. There's plenty of rich left in the US, but pretty much the whole meat of the economy has been moved to China so there's nothing produced in the US worth buying and so the unemployment stays at 10%. Killing a "local" industry, even if it doesn't contribute to expo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm glad someone else understand the problem. I don't know how to fix it either...I don't think encouraging spending is as pointless as you think, but that's simply because I have no other options.
For the past three or so decades we've steadily been shipping jobs out while borrowing against everything we own so we can purchase stuff.
It used to be US workers made something, and got paid via the profit on selling that, and with their paycheck they could purchase other stuff.
Now it's the Chinese who make st
Re:The economy is in the tank (Score:5, Insightful)
Every dollar not spent on bad movies and pop music is one more dollar that can be spent on productive industry.
Congratulations (Score:2)
Isn't it amazing what a signature line can get a moderator to do?
Shocking! (Score:5, Funny)
How could they be so blind?
Think of the children... (Score:3)
Think of the children... of the music and movie executives and shareholders! Without police enforcement of their right to inherit royalties, they might have to get jobs when they grow up!
No need to ask (Score:5, Informative)
Obvious reason (Score:4, Insightful)
Follow the money.
Ah, if only missing persons were worth more (Score:4, Interesting)
If there were a missing persons industry, then we could assign an imaginary and excessive value to "loss of profits" due to missing persons. Then they could be considered as valuable as a CD, and the FBI could put more effort into investigating.
Re:Ah, if only missing persons were worth more (Score:5, Interesting)
There's an industry of making people go missing in Colombia... I hear its fairly profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. There's at least one radio station that has a regular program which is used to broadcast messages from family to their captive loved ones. Fascinating radio show here:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/409/held-hostage [thisamericanlife.org]
Listen to act one. There's an industry for kidnapping insurance (rule #1: don't tell anyone you have it).
Re:Ah, if only missing persons were worth more (Score:5, Interesting)
If there were a missing persons industry
Human trafficking is big in the US [humantrafficking.org], bigger than you would expect, and it's flying under the radar.
Better Idea (Score:5, Funny)
Kill all birds with one stone.
1) Every person should be copyrighted
2) Any missing person should be considered abducted and cross filed under copyright theft
3) Any person that has gone missing should be cross filed under identity theft as it could be an abduction, copyright abduction / theft, and a missing person at the same time.
I could find sarcastic ways to connect ident theft & copyrights to possibility of missing persons but I'm lazy.
Re: (Score:2)
Kill all birds with one stone. 1) Every person should be copyrighted 2) Any missing person should be considered abducted and cross filed under copyright theft 3) Any person that has gone missing should be cross filed under identity theft as it could be an abduction, copyright abduction / theft, and a missing person at the same time.
I could find sarcastic ways to connect ident theft & copyrights to possibility of missing persons but I'm lazy.
It would be better to patent every child born thereby protecting that child under patent law for life.
Remember, the FBI is the government strong-arm of the corporate strong-arm, the IRS. Missing persons do not fit anywhere in the equation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Every person should be copyrighted
Like a number of slashdotters, I was a shy kid. I didn't like birthdays at all, because on that day, I hated being the center of attention. I didn't like being looked at, and I espescially didn't like posing for photographs, or anyone taking my picture or a video of me. And I thought I came up with a great solution. I must have been like 12, but the idea was, I would copyright my likeness, my voice, and my story, everything that made me what I am, and then, in theory, I could control the flow of information
Re: (Score:2)
1) Every person should be copyrighted
So if this copyrighted person was a filthy rapist, would his victims who were impregnated be accused of illegal duplication? Is this fetal piracy?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, you're thinking of cloning. Rape would be creating a derivative work without the authors permission.
Re: (Score:2)
"Kill all birds with one stone"
You forgot 'sudo'.
Wrong (Score:4, Informative)
INCORRECT:
The FBI is NOT prioritizing copyright over missing persons.
CORRECT:
The FBI has a backlog of missing person DNA to run in the DNA labs.
The FBI is increasing the amount of manpower assigned to copyright.
I don't know how much the FBI should spend at all on copyright, but it is a bit of a stretch to take the current facts and say that copyright is prioritized over missing persons.
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
INCORRECT: The FBI is NOT prioritizing copyright over missing persons.
CORRECT: The FBI has a backlog of missing person DNA to run in the DNA labs. The FBI is increasing the amount of manpower assigned to copyright.
I don't know how much the FBI should spend at all on copyright, but it is a bit of a stretch to take the current facts and say that copyright is prioritized over missing persons.
I would relabel that as "Unsubstantiated" and "Factual", for unless you can prove your former assertion, is too strong a labeling. They could be prioritizing copyright over missing persons like the summary implies, and though this is unsubstantiated quantitatively, it cannot blatantly be labelled "incorrect", unless somebody knows otherwise. [citation?]
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
CORRECT:
The FBI has a backlog of missing person DNA to run in the DNA labs.
The FBI is increasing the amount of manpower assigned to copyright.
If they have a big backlog in the DNA labs, but they're increasing the manpower assigned to copyright "crimes", then that looks to me like they're prioritizing copyright over missing persons. If missing persons were a higher priority, they would devote more resources to their backlogged DNA labs, so that they wouldn't be backlogged any more, and they wouldn't devote any more resources to copyright.
So it looks like the summary is correct after all.
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
If they're increasing the manpower for copyright crimes, that means they have money available in their budget to pay those people. Instead of hiring people for copyright, they could spend that money to hire people for DNA labs, or build more labs, buy more equipment to make the existing workers more efficient, etc.
Are you really trying to claim that there's a glut of qualified workers for pursuing copyright cases, and there's zero available workers for DNA labs? Pursuing copyright cases isn't an unskilled job either.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd consider that work on copyright cases is probably easier to bolster since any reasonably competent FBI agent should be able to handle something like that. I'd think that the backlog of DNA cases would take considerably more expertise, more effort, and greater expense to significantly increase the throughput of cases.
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps, but "more difficult" doesn't mean "impossible". All the money being spent on increasing staffing for copyright cases could be spent on DNA cases instead, even if the gain is small. The DNA cases are extremely important, and a valid use of taxpayer dollars, since one of government's jobs is to provide police services, which now includes investigative services and DNA analysis. Pursuing copyright cases is not important in the least, and is (or should be) a civil matter anyway. It doesn't require any investigation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
INCORRECT:
The FBI is NOT prioritizing copyright over missing persons.
CORRECT:
The FBI has a backlog of missing person DNA to run in the DNA labs.
The FBI is increasing the amount of manpower assigned to copyright.
I don't know how much the FBI should spend at all on copyright, but it is a bit of a stretch to take the current facts and say that copyright is prioritized over missing persons.
Sure, the FBI isn't officially prioritizing copyrights over missing persons.
However, the fact that they're increasing allocation to copyright means it obviously holds more importance. If it didn't, those same funds could be put to use elsewhere on what normal people would consider to be more important cases.
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Reading the article and some of the fine links (note that quotes are marked, but not attributed) -- to quote one (on identify theft):
"Identity theft is on the rise nationwide, yet in a report released Tuesday, federal investigators lament that the Department of Justice's (DOJ) efforts to combat such crimes have to some degree "faded as priorities."
According to the DOJ's Office of the Inspector General (IG), many of the suggestions pitched in 2006 by then-President George W. Bush's task force on identity theft have yet to be implemented fully. As of March, the agency had not even appointed an official to oversee those efforts, according to the report.
Moreover, changes in how the FBI handles related investigations have resulted in an atmosphere in which "the specific crime of identity theft is not an FBI priority," investigators said."
Now, Copyright violation is a civil matter, and identify theft is a crime:
"Well, isn't this just great. Just a little while back, the Justice Department announced that fighting "intellectual property crime" was a major priority. At the time, we wondered if there weren't more important things for the DOJ to be working on. The answer is yes, of course, but the Justice Department has apparently decided to push them off the priority list. A new report on identity fraud notes that it has "faded" as a priority for the DOJ and the FBI. Ah, right, the stuff that actually harms individuals directly and isn't a civil or business model issue? Why focus on that when you can prop up your friends in Hollywood?"
And, yes, the FBI has a horrible backlog (2 years, according to the OIG, if no new cases come in). So, why is the FBI investing in a private police force (for civil matters)? This is a new mission:
"Attorney General Eric Holder Friday announced the creation of a Justice Department intellectual property task force to better tackle domestic and international piracy and other IP crimes. "The rise in intellectual property crime in the United States and abroad threatens not only our public safety but also our economic well being," Holder said in a statement. "This Task Force will allow us to identify and implement a multi-faceted strategy with our federal, state and international partners to effectively combat this type of crime."
Is this not the very definition of prioritization? Yes, I would say that Copyright has been prioritized over missing persons. There was no need to create a Copyright private police force, and an acknowledged need to bolster DNA analysis.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
INCORRECT: The FBI is NOT prioritizing copyright over missing persons.
CORRECT: The FBI has a backlog of missing person DNA to run in the DNA labs. The FBI is increasing the amount of manpower assigned to copyright.
CONCLUSION
By increasing manpower assigned to copyright and NOT increasing the manpower assigned to running the DNA labs / increasing the amount of equipment needed to run the tests, the FBI IS prioritizing copyright above missing persons.
You had the facts correct - you just failed to make the obvious conclusion.
Someone should copyright (Score:2)
How much worths a life? (Score:2)
False Dichotomy (Score:4, Insightful)
In the case of missing persons, because some of them don't want to be found, or another department has already exhausted their leads.
In the case of Identity Theft, because the perpetrators are often in other countries, where it doesn't make practical sense to send field agents to sift through hearsay or rumor in order to find someone who might be their criminal, and who, if he's smart at all, has since erased the evidence of his theft anyways.
Question about original sources (Score:3, Informative)
If a little blonde girl goes missing (Score:4, Insightful)
they'll be all over it. And you won't hear anything else on the news for a month.
But the farther you are from "little blonde girl", the less you matter.
Value of a person (Score:5, Interesting)
I live in New Zealand. Emergency services here run helicoptors. Not just for the old cliche of plucking people of a cliff face, but also for car accidents and medical emergencies in non-urban areas. To provide perspective, a seriously injured person, just 20 minutes from a city may recieve helicoptor service for severe cases.
What defines severe? Is it worth it to the taxpayer?
About 12 years ago, a study was done to put a monetary cost to a citizen loosing their life. Presumably this factored loss of taxable income, consequences of earning potential of spouses, impact and costs to assist a dependant child.
It was in the news even, and it ignited a moral debate. That cost to society was NZ$1,100,000.
The point being, the cost of the helicoptor recovery was less than this, at about $5000 per hour.
We can perhaps conclue the FBI has done some similar sums, but the poor individual has not fared so well in the cost/benefit analysis. Or someone high up has an interest in a copyright litigation practice.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yahoo already taught us that one illegal download is equal in value to three and one third dead family members...
http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/6486/valuemusicvslife.jpg [imageshack.us]
self-citing on techdirt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does it seem to anybody else like Techdirt is actually just self-citing itself for its proof? I don't really see where it's shown that the FBI has copyright enforcement actually prioritized higher than missing persons here. I see references to people saying it's a major priority, but that doesn't actually mean it really is. I think we need some more evidence laid out a little more clearly than what Techdirt has done, at least.
I tried...missing people (Score:5, Interesting)
News flash: (Score:3, Funny)
Impounded bootleg film at 11.
Simple (Score:3, Insightful)
So Who Pays the FBI (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously commercial forces join together And continually let the FBI know who contributes big bucks to officials. Justice is for sale in more ways than one.
Capitalism again. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Unlimited oversight by the people.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Copyrights and patents are one of the things the Constitution actually allows Congress to make laws regarding:
Article I, section 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
The "limited time" part has been completely forgotten in the case of copyright, though.
Re: (Score:2)
From section 8 "Powers of Congress" of the US Constitution.
There are some state-level relics as well, which complicate the copyright provenance of certain material; but the federal stuff is explicitly mentioned. I assume that the "reasoning" is that uniformity is convenient, and it makes people with influence happy.
Re: (Score:2)
The constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
I know some people will say that copyright shouldn't exist at all. But ignoring that argument for a moment, I'm curious why copyright isn't part of state law and not federal. What is the reasoning?
Not a legal scholar, but I believe that since the power to establish copyright is explicitly granted to the federal government in the US Constitution, it's presumably forbidden for the states to have their own copyright laws.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is, during the drafting of the Constitution, there was at least a significant number of the drafters who favored an approach of writing and constructing the Constitution in a way that any power not explicitely granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution was forbidden to it. So, that might be way it's not "just federal law" - because if you believe that Congress has no power to pass laws not related to some specific power granted in the Constitution, and if you think that nationwid