The Bush twins: no amnesty (Updated, corrected and retracted)

Show mercy to Scooter Libby but not an illegal immigrant. Sue grandmothers and single parents of ten years olds but let rich twenty somethings admit piracy to a national newspaper with no one making a peep. Justice must have her blindfold off.

But I shouldn't have said no one has made a peep. We have to make an exception for Mitchell Silverman, Florida lawyer, keen-eyed reader, and fighter for equal justice under the law. Mr. Silverman, bless his heart, recognized the clear evidence of a theft right before his eyes -- in the newspaper:

President Bush unwrapped Father's Days gifts Sunday at his Texas ranch where the skies let go a deluge of rain that turned roadside gullies into muddy ponds and closed the main road into this tiny Texas community.

From first lady Laura Bush, the president received several ties she purchased during their recent trip to Europe, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said. Bush's twin daughters, gave him a CD they had made for him to listen to while exercising. (Miami Herald)

I admit I would have missed the crime, here. But Mr. Silverman saw it immediately:

"[President] Bush's twin daughters, gave him [as a Father?s Day present] a CD they had made for him to listen to while exercising."

Let me unpack that statement. Let's assume twelve songs, copied from twelve different CDs. We'll assume for the purpose of argument that there's no problem with the original recordings being registered (17 U.S.C. §412 (2006) makes statutory damages unavailable for unregistered works) or not being marked correctly (17 U.S.C. §402 (2006)).

This mix CD isn't a compilation being copied, it's one being created, so the last sentence of 17 U.S.C. §504(c)(1) (2006) doesn't apply--the copyright rights-holder may get damages for each song copied. There's a rebuttable presumption that the infringement was willful (17 U.S.C. §504(c)(3)(A) (2006)), which means that 17 U.S.C. §504(c)(2) (2006) applies: $150,000 statutory damages per infringement.

That's $1,800,000 in statutory damages. (The Scrivener via Boingboing)

Then Mr. Silverman did what a good citizen should. He alerted the unsuspecting victim a crime had been committed by sending the the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) a letter on his letterhead. The RIAA is, as I am sure you know, the crusading defender of the poor artists they have been exploiting for decades.

In his letter Mr. Silverman rightly emphasized the gravity of the crime:

This is a serious violation of copyright. As you know, whichever of your member organizations that are right-holders for the copied musical works may be entitled to statutory damages of $150,000.00 per musical work copied. (From the letter)

We applaud Mr. Silverman and anxiously await news the miscreants have been served a subpoena. Don't get me wrong. I don't think the twins should be treated any differently than anyone else. A demand letter for a settlement of $3500 is sufficient. But justice delayed is justice denied. It should be swift and sure. And righteous.

Update, correction and retraction: It seems attorney Silverman is acknowledging he erred in interpreting the law and has issued a retraction and apology on his site:

It has come to my attention that noncommercial copying of digital music recordings may not be an infringement under Title 17 of the U.S. Code, "Copyrights." I apologize for any confusion I may have caused or any mistaken impression I may have given.

If you read the comments, however, you will see that not everyone agrees with his re-interpretation. We don't have enough expertise to decide, so we will retract and apologize with him. Fair is fair. (Hat tip to commenter John).

More like this

I can't wait to see how this turns out.

I like Bush hypocrisy as much as the next guy, but whose to say they didn't buy the songs online?

"Bought the songs online": that doesn't matter. They copied them and gave them to Poppa. By copyright law that is illegal (see third para. of The Scrivener pull quote).

Sounded like a retraction to me.

So, shall we switch to illegal immigrants?

Before people level accusations about legality/illegality, it would be a good idea (and a matter of common decency) to check the law. I'm not an intellectual property lawyer, but even I know that a certain amount of leeway is afforded for non-commercial use. As for the accusations in question, are we dealing with an honest mistake or maybe malice aforethought?

By bob koepp (not verified) on 23 Jun 2007 #permalink

See my Update, correction and retraction at end of post.

Copying songs - whether for sharing, gifts, backups (necessary to protect one's investment), downloading, listening (yes, if you have a modern buffered skip-compensating CD player, the song is copied as you listen) has become embedded in how we use and perceive technology. No-one is presenting any coherent plan to change this, or to enforce the existing laws. Thus, such laws can only be useful for persecution.

bob koepp: note retraction on the merits. But "intentions" seem to be no concern of the RIAA and MPAA folks, who subpoena people without even knowing if they have done anything, basically on speculation they have done something. I hope you understood this post was not about the Bush Twins but about the stupidity and cupidity of RIAA and their whole (legal) system of copyright protection. It wasn't about whether something was legal or not legal in reality, but about who RIAA goes after and for what. I had retracted the post before your comment (although the timing indicates you wouldn't have seen it) but I think you missed my point.

Silverman needs to stop chasing those ambulances so closely and the RIAA should just join forces with the ACLU who just shut down another Boy Scout meeting place in Philly which in 1928 was there own building donated TO the city.

How and more to the point WHEN do we get rid of these immoral, unethical piles of manure!?

In the alleged name of copyright infringement the RIAA prosecutes children for recording personal listening of songs where the ACLU punishes children nationwide for rightly barring deviant behavior and shielding them from it....Am I misinformed in any part of this here?

Philadelphia booting Boy Scouts from HQ
City council reneges on 1928 agreement to allow use 'in perpetuity' 6/1
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55964
"In one of the final steps of a long-running attack on the Boy Scouts' Cradle of Liberty Council in Philadelphia, the city council has voted to renege on a 1928 ordinance allowing the Scouts to have their headquarters in a building on a parcel of public land "in perpetuity."

The reason? The Scouts disqualify homosexuals as leaders for troops of young boys.

The word came through one of the organizations that encouraged the city to put the scouting organization, which ranks as about the third-largest local council in the nation, serving more than 80,000 boys and men, out of its headquarters.

Earlier city officials in San Francisco and Boston made similar decisions displacing the Scouts because of their behavior code requiring "moral straightness."...."

By Winghunter (not verified) on 23 Jun 2007 #permalink

Wingnut: LOL. You sound like a Fred Thompson boy, all right. Unfortunately (for you), it is your views that are the deviant ones. But you can join our Scout troop. We're not afraid of you. It takes all kinds. Like your source, WorldNet (the Moonies,).

How about we show no mercy for Scooter Libby and deport the illegal immigrant as well.