Slashdot Mirror

That's correct, exception 2. And it doesn't say "copies of phonorecords" it says "copies or phonorecords". And phonorecord is a technical term for audio recording. This includes digital phonorecords.

Next, from the US Customs web site,

Electronic Transmissions
Information and materials downloaded from the Internet are not subject to duty. This applies to any goods or merchandise that are electronically transmitted to the purchaser, such as CDs, books, or posters. However, the unauthorized downloading of copyrighted items could subject you to prosecution. Downloading child pornography is also a crime. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has the authority to investigate and prosecute persons involved in this and other illegal activities.

And finally, since allofmp3 follows Russian copyright law, the following from 602 b) applies:

In a case where the copies or phonorecords were lawfully made, the United States Customs Service has no authority to prevent their importation unless the provisions of section 601 are applicable.

I contract to the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) and I was the primary developer of the Canadian side of the Nexus program. The US developed there own version.
The thing shared in common is an issued card with an RFID chip. The chip is assoicated with the traveller, not the car. So for those people at the border who want to avoid the lineups, they have signed up, been through the security checks and are being 'tracked' when crossing the border with the RFID chip given to them. It probably doesn't bother them because they can avoid 10 minutes to an hour of waiting time at the border.
From the article it sounds like the US may be trying to expand this to become an 'on-demand' program for those that they feel might be a higher risk. If the technology is similar to what is being used in Nexus then I don't see a big issue. Maybe the people being 'forced' into the program don't like it, but if you want to travel across the border and the government considers you a risk, that is the price you're going to have to pay. As for the government tacking your every move with this RFID, not likely. The range is quite small and you have to pass by the sensors quite close and present the chip or it won't get read.
The ideas of associating the chip with the car doesn't make much sense as has been pointed out by other replys (changing cars, numerous people in the cars and different persons crossing through each time). I guess it depends on how they're going to apply the technology. Maybe they know something about the patterns of vehicle crossings that would signal them to suspicious activity?

I'm a little late for this but it's an area I'm familiar with so I thought I'd contribute it.

The U.S. Customs Department is in the process of moving towards what they call "U.N. APIS" (Advanced Passenger Information System). Details can be found at here in the Word document US Passenger List; UN EDIFACT Message Set.

The U.S. APIS system which has been used for some time does not require destination address information. The U.N. format does. See the linked document pages 60-63 for more details. Eventually this will be required when flying any major airline coming into the U.S., not just American Airlines.

I'm a little late for this but it's an area I'm familiar with so I thought I'd contribute it.

The U.S. Customs Department is in the process of moving towards what they call "U.N. APIS" (Advanced Passenger Information System). Details can be found at here in the Word document US Passenger List; UN EDIFACT Message Set.

The U.S. APIS system which has been used for some time does not require destination address information. The U.N. format does. See the linked document pages 60-63 for more details. Eventually this will be required when flying any major airline coming into the U.S., not just American Airlines.

Presumably if you answer yes to any of the questions they may not let you into the country. Nice to know the US has such a cunning scheme in operation to foil the terrorists!

the engineers at the University of Warwick have created a small transparent window in the case or cover in which they can embed a seed.

Does this mean I have to declare my cellphone at the border? Will an import permit be required?

This is actually very explicitly *not* true. There are well defined exceptions in US import regulations regarding purchasing prescriptions drugs for which you have a prescription in foreign countries and bringing them back in.

Look at the relevant sections on the US customs site. The restrictions are that you can only bring in one 'refill' for each valid prescription you have. You are in violation of import statutes if you try to bring in large quantities of drugs even if you have a valid prescription, however.

This is designed so folks who have valid prescriptions can purchase drugs when they are travelling and bring them back with them.

Relevant reference can be found at
http://www.customs.gov/xp/cgov/travel/alerts/medic ation_drugs.xml

Other than Hong Kong and a smattering of other holes in the wall, most nations selling anything you're interested in have a VAT that hits even harder than just about anything Stateside. If that doesn't deter you, it'll be the wait while your package sits in Customs. Collecting duty on imports is the oldest form of taxation on the books.

That's beacuse companies don't like to advertise that fact. Companies often outsource their production; and as long as they do some basic testing, who will know the difference?

"Clearly Piratical" and "Possibly Piratical"

Which are defined as so: "Clearly Piratical" is defined as overwhelming and substantial similarity between the copyrighted elements of the protected work and the imported item so as to clearly indicate that one work was based upon the other. The second, "Possibly Piratical" encompasses those situations in which articles are suspected of constituting piratical copies, but are not clearly deemed to be such at the time of presentment.

I would like to see when EXACTLY did the US Customs service say that: "the Flash Advance Linker violates the DMCA and is subject to confiscation." This sounds like a bunch of bullshit from NOA's lawyers.

"Clearly Piratical" and "Possibly Piratical"

Which are defined as so: "Clearly Piratical" is defined as overwhelming and substantial similarity between the copyrighted elements of the protected work and the imported item so as to clearly indicate that one work was based upon the other. The second, "Possibly Piratical" encompasses those situations in which articles are suspected of constituting piratical copies, but are not clearly deemed to be such at the time of presentment.

I would like to see when EXACTLY did the US Customs service say that: "the Flash Advance Linker violates the DMCA and is subject to confiscation." This sounds like a bunch of bullshit from NOA's lawyers.