Corante

AUTHORS

Donna Wentworth
( Archive | Home | Technorati Profile)

Ernest Miller
( Archive | Home )

Elizabeth Rader
( Archive | Home )

Jason Schultz
( Archive | Home )

Wendy Seltzer
( Archive | Home | Technorati Profile )

Aaron Swartz
( Archive | Home )

Alan Wexelblat
( Archive | Home )

About this weblog
Here we'll explore the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill policy-making, technical standards development, and technological innovation that creates -- and will recreate -- the networked world as we know it. Among the topics we'll touch on: intellectual property conflicts, technical architecture and innovation, the evolution of copyright, private vs. public interests in Net policy-making, lobbying and the law, and more.

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this weblog are those of the authors and not of their respective institutions.

What Does "Copyfight" Mean?

Copyfight, the Solo Years: April 2002-March 2004

COPYFIGHTERS
a Typical Joe
Academic Copyright
Jack Balkin
John Perry Barlow
Benlog
beSpacific
bIPlog
Blogaritaville
Blogbook IP
BoingBoing
David Bollier
James Boyle
Robert Boynton
Brad Ideas
Ren Bucholz
Cabalamat: Digital Rights
Cinema Minima
CoCo
Commons-blog
Consensus @ Lawyerpoint
Copyfighter's Musings
Copyfutures
Copyright Readings
Copyrighteous
CopyrightWatch Canada
Susan Crawford
Walt Crawford
Creative Commons
Cruelty to Analog
Culture Cat
Deep Links
Derivative Work
Detritus
Julian Dibbell
DigitalConsumer
Digital Copyright Canada
Displacement of Concepts
Downhill Battle
DTM:<|
Electrolite
Exploded Library
Bret Fausett
Edward Felten - Freedom to Tinker
Edward Felten - Dashlog
Frank Field
Seth Finkelstein
Brian Flemming
Frankston, Reed
Free Culture
Free Range Librarian
Michael Froomkin
Michael Geist
Michael Geist's BNA News
Dan Gillmor
Mike Godwin
Joe Gratz
GrepLaw
James Grimmelmann
GrokLaw
Groklaw News
Matt Haughey
Erik J. Heels
ICANNWatch.org
Illegal-art.org
Induce Act blog
Inter Alia
IP & Social Justice
IPac blog
IPTAblog
Joi Ito
Jon Johansen
JD Lasica
LawMeme.org
Legal Theory Blog
Lenz Blog
Larry Lessig
Jessica Litman
James Love
Alex Macgillivray
Madisonian Theory
Maison Bisson
Kevin Marks
Tim Marman
Matt Rolls a Hoover
miniLinks
Mary Minow
Declan McCullagh
Eben Moglen
Dan Moniz
Napsterization
Nerdlaw
NQB
Danny O'Brien
Open Access
Open Codex
John Palfrey
Chris Palmer
Promote the Progress
PK News
PVR Blog
Eric Raymond
Joseph Reagle
Recording Industry vs. the People
Lisa Rein
Thomas Roessler
Seth Schoen
Doc Searls
Seb's Open Research
Shifted Librarian
Doug Simpson
Slapnose
Slashdot.org
Stay Free! Daily
Sarah Stirland
Swarthmore Coalition
Tech Law Advisor
Technology Liberation Front
Teleread
Siva Vaidhyanathan
Vertical Hold
Kim Weatherall
Weblogg-ed
David Weinberger
Matthew Yglesias

LINKABLE + THINKABLE
AKMA
Timothy Armstrong
Bag and Baggage
Charles Bailey
Beltway Blogroll
Between Lawyers
Blawg Channel
bk
Chief Blogging Officer
Drew Clark
Chris Cohen
Crawlspace
Crooked Timber
Daily Whirl
Dead Parrots Society
Delaware Law Office
J. Bradford DeLong
Betsy Devine
Dispositive
Ben Edelman
EEJD
Ernie the Attorney
FedLawyerGuy
Foreword
How Appealing
Industry Standard
IP Democracy
IPnewsblog
IP Watch
Dennis Kennedy
Rick Klau
Wendy Koslow
Kuro5hin.org
Elizabeth L. Lawley
Jerry Lawson
Legal Reader
Likelihood of Confusion
Chris Locke
Derek Lowe
Misbehaving
MIT Tech Review
NewsGrist
OtherMag
Paper Chase
Frank Paynter
PHOSITA
Scott Rosenberg
Scrivener's Error
Jeneane Sessum
Silent Lucidity
Smart Mobs
Trademark Blog
Eugene Volokh
Kevin Werbach

ORGANIZATIONS
ARL
Berkman @ Harvard
CDT
Chilling Effects
CIS @ Stanford
CPSR
Copyright Reform
Creative Commons
DigitalConsumer.org
DFC
EFF
EPIC
FIPR
FCC
FEPP
FSF
Global Internet Proj.
ICANN
IETF
ILPF
Info Commons
IP Justice
ISP @ Yale
NY for Fair Use
Open Content
PFF
Public Knowledge
Shidler Center @ UW
Tech Center @ GMU
U. Maine Tech Law Center
US Copyright Office
US Dept. of Justice
US Patent Office
W3C


In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

Copyfight

« CFP, Take 2 | Main | 1,000 Songs is Enough »

April 22, 2004

FBI Raids Public Schools in AZ

Email This Entry

Posted by Jason Schultz

While the FBI has had trouble tracking down Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists, they appear to have had no problem locating and raiding another group of alleged lawbreakers: public school childrencopyright infringers.

Federal agents in Phoenix and elsewhere in the country raided schools and other targets in a national crackdown on pirated music CDs and movies.

Agents poured through data and records at a computer command center for the Deer Valley School District in the northwest Valley and blocked the office from the public. It was among other places in Arizona and "quite a few other states" where sealed search warrants were served, the FBI said.

DOJ Press Release on the raids, which not surprisingly, doesn't mention that public schools children were amongst the targets.

Update: Alright, alright. I suppose my post was implying a bit too much. We don't know whether the target of the FBI raid was children or employees. But we do know that the FBI is expending significant tax dollars and public resources in these raids. While this isn't unusual in the context of commercial bootlegging, pre-release distribution and/or organized crime-related copyright infringement, it is unusual if the infringement is standard non-commercial community copying. It signifies quite a step up in scope of the FBIs efforts.

The real question is, what are the tradeoffs? Are there terrorist or other threats they could be investigating instead of busting warez pirates? What are the real costs of such a campaign?

Comments (8) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: IP Abuse


COMMENTS

1. kevin on April 22, 2004 6:39 PM writes...

So here's a scenario:

What if an employee of the school district was using the Deer Valley computer command center to house 3 GB worth of movies and music?

Perhaps school children weren't the targets. Let wait to see what happens.

Permalink to Comment

2. AdamThomas on April 22, 2004 6:41 PM writes...

Are you a good cybercitizen?

Take this easy online test FOR KIDS!

remember, don't be a 'Joey'...

Test Yourself

"How can you convince your friends that copying software without permission is the same as stealing it?"

Permalink to Comment

3. Joseph Pietro Riolo on April 23, 2004 5:32 AM writes...


First, to correct your misunderstanding,
it is not FBI's responsibility to track
down Osama Bin Laden. That is CIA's or
military's responsibility.

Second, your analogy between terrorists
and illegal copies of copyrighted works
is not valid, although it is commonly
misused by authors and artists.

Finally, this deals with the illegal
copies of copyrighted works. What
is wrong with that?


Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
in this comment in the public domain.

Permalink to Comment

4. m on April 23, 2004 11:30 AM writes...

It's a question of fact whether the resources they expended on this were justified in the totality of the impact resulting from the operation. The FBI does have a role to play to ensure that levels of piracy and counterfeiting don't spiral out of control - they need to be seen (and to be actually doing!) their work.

The problem with the "standard non-commercial community" copying is that in aggregate, it is proving destructive. Levels of piracy less than 10% are "realistic", but when file sharing, wares groups and other online and enabled activities cause this figure to blow out to 40% (as it has been established) then it needs to be addressed. It's not just a matter of these small actions, it's a matter of the message that is being sent out: participate in any meaningful way in the distribution of wares, and you could be next.

Permalink to Comment

5. Paolo on April 23, 2004 12:44 PM writes...

> The problem with the "standard non-commercial
> community" copying is that in aggregate, it is
> proving destructive.

No, it's not. There is no conclusive evidence that it is even relevant, especially if you compare it with the wide market of non-internet-related piracy and duplication (look at the Asian market).

On the other hand, what I see as self-destructive is actually approving of repressive institutionalized fascism exemplified by the action above. When we were kids, we swapped on cassettes records we could not otherwise afford. We did not expect the FBI to barge in on that.

Permalink to Comment

6. Ernest Miller on April 23, 2004 1:11 PM writes...

There is no evidence of institutionalized fascism in this case. From reports it appears that the FBI is going after organized warez groups, not run-of-the-mill filesharers.

Permalink to Comment

7. AdamThomas on April 23, 2004 1:21 PM writes...

re Mr. Riolo's post

First, 'responsibility' is a nebulous term, but Bin Laden is on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted site. This implies that he is of some interest. They also purport to "protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats and to enforce the criminal laws of the United States" (link)

Second, please specify why comparison is not valid. If you are arguing a distinction between civil and criminal law enforcement, please elaborate. I believe Jason's argument was that scarce funds should be directed to our most immediate threats.

Nothing is wrong with enforcement of copyright law - though the wisdom of various laws regarding IP is contentious. This was also a action taken on by the FBI most likely due to commerial influence (BSA, ESA, MPAA, RIAA), and could thus be criticized as taxpayer expenditure to subsidize a special interest (i.e. there was no public outcry of which I am aware demanding that the FBI - who has complained of thin budgets - use more of the resources at its disposal to enforce IP law)

Permalink to Comment

8. Joseph Pietro Riolo on April 23, 2004 8:40 PM writes...

In response to AdamThomas' comment:

As long as Osama Bin Laden is outside of the U.S.,
FBI will not spend all of its efforts in locating
him. Jason's complaint that FBI was wasting
its resources on illegal copy activities is
misplaced. FBI can't do anything with Bin
Laden but once he is in the U.S., FBI will
definitely mobilize all of its resources to
track down and capture him.

FBI has its own divisions that are responsible
for different things such as drug, robbery,
kidnap, murder, cybercrime, and terrorism.
It is obvious that each division receives
a certain amount of money. Some divisions
have more money than other divisions. That is
how FBI is able to use some of its resources
on different criminal activities.

I don't think that it costs too much for FBI to
raid these schools. It is much easier than
breaking child pornography ring.

It is natural to blame RIAA, MPAA, and others
for encouraging FBI to do such raids. But, the
authors and artists ultimately are responsible
because they encourage RIAA, MPAA, and others
to protect their interests.


Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
in this comment in the public domain.

Permalink to Comment


EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
CBS to HBO: Wait for Us!
Sometime Next Year, HBO Will Become Netflix
OpenMedia vs the TPP
CopyrightX 2015 (online course) Now Open
College Students vs Rising Textbook Prices
"Amazon is crowdsourcing their slush pile"
Rule 84 and Patent Trolls
Sports Continue to Tiptoe Away from Cable Monopolies