New Congressional Bill Makes DMCA Look Tame

An anonymous reader writes "Representative Lamar Smith is sponsoring the Intellectual Property Protection Act. The new bill is designed to give the Justice Department 'tools to combat IP crime' which which are used to 'quite frankly, fund terrorism activities,' according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Among the provisions is lowering the standards for 'willful copyright violation' and increasing the corresponding prison term to 10 years." More information is also available at publicknowledge.org.

Comments

Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Lamar Smith, Christian Scientist, hater of immigrants & proud possessor of one of the stupidest middle names eve (Seeligson).

Reading Open Secret's page about him, you see the usual line up of Legal firms, Content & Tech companies. Just the people who stand to benefit from this legislation the most.

I really don't understand why people vote for politicians who are bought & sold so easily (and cheaply).

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[808skeptic]

I wonder if the Bush Administration realizes what its rhetoric sounds like. Copyright infringement = terrorism? Marijuana = terrorism? This is overtly Orwellian doubletalk. I'm not going so far as to say that we're in a police state, but you can justify stronger IP laws without resorting to blaming it (and everything) for terrorism. It's fucking ridiculous.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[reldruH]

Be careful with how loosely you throw around the 1984 references. You never know when Big Brother is watching...

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[ColonelClaw]

just when i thought american politicians couln't sink any lower... guys, how on earth can you put up with such a bunch of lying scheming bastards controlling your country? using 'terrorism' as an excuse to do how they please makes me absolutely sick to the bone

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if the Bush Administration realizes what its rhetoric sounds like.

Wrong question.

Right question:

I wonder if the Bush Administration cares.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[ArsenneLupin]

but you can justify stronger IP laws without resorting to blaming it (and everything) for terrorism.

You can. You can resort to blaming it on child pornography instead. Works just as well!

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[NitsujTPU]

Still wrong.

It was introduced by a Congressman.

Let me go ahead and repeat that for you, since nobody ever understands that.

A CONGRESSMAN.

The reason that "the Bush Administration" gets away with this is because you're looking in the wrong place. This is called "the legislature," and it really hasn't got a damn thing to do with who is the President.

Want to fix this situation? Blame the right people.

It sounds almost like Congress has this double talk thing worked out as well.

"Everything that we do that pisses people off" = "The Bush Administration"

These people can get away with it as long as the voters blame everything that they do on Bush.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[arivanov]

Err...

Unless I am mistaken, this is not retorical, it is a clear statement that piracy is being used to fund terrorism.

Frankly, someone in the US gov is taking lessons from the el presidente Antonio Bliar's book that any lie is OK provided that it is for the "just cause". Can we see some damn proof of at least one instance when this has happened?

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Elemenope]

For the most part I agree that blaming the congressmen for acts of congress is more politically productive, but I would submit that your view that this is separate from the executive's legislative agenda (and rest assured, it has one) is simplistic at best.

Part of what makes the Republican party so scary (besides the wacko puritan crazies that overran it about 25 years ago) is that it boasts a strong party loyalty amongst members of congress in a system that franly doesn't encourage it. Admittedly there are outliers like Ron Paul in the House and Lincoln Chafee and Olympia Snowe in the Senate but they are truly anomalies in an otherwise placid sea of party line voters. Part of that loyalty comes directly from executive strong-arming, particularly threats of not helping to fundraise for reelection (which can be crippling for a congressman). To say that Bush and his team bear no blame for the legislation coming out of their congressional colleage's collective asses is missing the forest for the trees. Especially when Mr. Gonzales is quoted in TFA as relating this legislative agenda to combatting terrorism. He's an executive officer, no doubt about it.

There is something to be said about politicians being bought and paid for, and particularly with legislation like this the largest pressure comes from industry lobbyists, but when you follow the money it also inevitably leads back to party and president (for the ruling party).

Now, ultimately, you are right in that focusing on Bush takes the attention off of some Members of Congress who richly deserve some democratically-imposed term limits, and because the picture is more complicated than you make it out to be, many of them will slip thorugh the cracks looking cleaner than they ought to. And that is a tragedy.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the immigration debate just dismantling this political regime as many MCs find themselves in a damn'd if ya do/dam'd if ya don't situation. It seems like the first time in a while that the republican stranglehold on the politcal consciences of its own MCs is breaking as they look to their own necks first.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Bin Naden]

Unless I am mistaken, this is not retorical, it is a clear statement that piracy is being used to fund terrorism

So when is oil becoming illegal?

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[NiceGeek]

Still wrong - from the TFA:
"The draft legislation, created by the Bush administration and backed by Rep. Lamar Smith"

note - CREATED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[sy161e]

To quote, 'quite frankly, fund terrorism activities,' according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (in reference to copyright infringement).

Attorney General Gonzales was appointed by W. Bush, so it is entirely appropriate attack the Bush administration's doubletalk.

"Terrorism" is the new red scare, where a blanket term applies to anything unpatriotic and antigovernment.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[xSauronx]

Fuck you! TAFT started all of this!

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[barefootgenius]

It has to do with buzzwords and time allocated to a story in the media. Basically someone is sitting in Washington D.C. telling the politicians what the current emotive words are. Things that scare people (terrorists, child pornographer, drugs) are good, or things that make people feel proud/good/safe (patriot, homeland, security, freedom, etc...).

Because the media only allocates a short amount of time to a story, its all a game of getting what you want by saying as many of these emotive words as you can in as short a time possible whilst camouflaging the fact that you are doing it. That, along with the indoctrination that we get as children, pretty much serves to keep people doing what the government wants.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[clydemaxwell]

No, they want you to throw them around more. It weakens the effect it has on us.
fewer people freak out when they hear that we live under big brother, now.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[ozmanjusri]

Copyright infringement = terrorism? Marijuana = terrorism?

I'd always thought the money chain for Al Quaeda funding was reasonably clear, with most coming from donations to "charitable" organisations such as the Muwafaq ("Blessed Relief") Foundation. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4963025/

That was pretty much how the IRA got their money too, so it's not like this is a novel concept. Why not introduce laws banning anonymous donations? It'd be more efefctive than this crap.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[replicant108]

It's been said many times, but it bears repeating:

Child Porn is the root password to the US Constitution.

Terrorism is the alternate password.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[eric76]

It was introduced by a Congressman.

Yep.

It sure was introduced by a Congressman. That doesn't mean that the Congressman wrote the bill.

The President cannot introduce legislation himself. It takes a Congressman to do that.

Even though the Congressman introduced the legislation, the legislation was drafted by the Bush administration.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

['nother poster]

I have no idea where you get off blaming taft for Hamiltons screw ups.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[voice_of_all_reason]

Somebody change the combination on my luggage!

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[DigDuality]

I feel that you're both right and wrong here. While you are correct, the cries of the "blame Bush first" crowd get tired and old, just as the "blame Clinton first" crowd did, we have to understand that this administration, like the Reagan administration has set the tone in terms of business deals. Now democrats are no saints and plenty of Dems are pushing for crap like this as well, but we wouldn't be seeing the merger we are, the bills protecting corporate interest only that we are, among a plethora of other things, if there wasn't a corporate Republican in the white house, a high incumbency rate in our Republican led Congress, and a shake up to tilt things even more towards conservatives in our Supreme Court. No Bush isn't directly responsible, yes people are looking in the wrong place, but yes we are in an atmosphere where the ton has been set by Bush & Co.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[niiler]

Q: What are you in for?

A: Programming, owning a computer without Windows, and thinking about Making something instead of Buying it.

Nuff said.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[tha_mink]

just when i thought american politicians couln't sink any lower... guys, how on earth can you put up with such a bunch of lying scheming bastards controlling your country? using 'terrorism' as an excuse to do how they please makes me absolutely sick to the bone

But...but...but...if you download Metalica, the terrorists win. Doesn't everyone know that?

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Daniel Dvorkin]

But Democratic legislators do break away from the party line more often than Republican ones do. This is a simple fact, easily verified by a look at voting records.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[SpaceLifeForm]

Q: How about you, what are you in for? A: Murder, got 7 years, out next month.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Mr. Ghost]

Part of what makes the Republican party so scary... This actually applies to both of the political parties. Both parties are only loyal to the party not to the American people, both parties have rogue elements but the vast majority of each will always tow the party line.

I have finally gotten so fed up with the whole thing and am now going to vote for the Constitution Party whenever possible and after that I will probably vote Libertarian Party and lastly on my list will be those Republicans that still believe in limited government because the vast majority of them no longer care about this.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[ichimunki]

It's the classic divide-and-conquer approach that America has been using since Day One. In this case the divide being created is between the artists and their audience. Guess which side wins... Bzzt! Neither. The media corporate execs are the only ones winning in this game (OK, so they do create a few multi-millionaire "artists" that serve the same function as lottery winners: keeping the suckers playing).

The execs are the only ones in a no-lose position. Or at least that was the case before computers and the internet. It's time for a whole new paradigm. But to get there, consumers and artists are going to have to work together... hence the sick beauty of the divide-and-conquer approach. The longer artists and audiences are kept from reaching mutually satisfactory solutions, the longer the media corp execs can line their pockets.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Captain Splendid]

I don't know. If you download one of the recent Metallica releases, everybody loses.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[IAmTheDave]

fewer people freak out when they hear that we live under big brother, now.

It's because America is lazy now. Change requires work, and America is just lazy. It's easier to bitch over coffee how Bush wiretaps then it is to actually do something - even as simple as writing your representatives.

People, as a whole, are sheep. It's the very thing that shows the likes of the Simpsons and Family Guy show - mob mentality rules, people are sheep. The majority usually complains about indescressions for a week, then accept them.

Take the RIAA for instance. There was a huge web backlash when they first filed their 1.7 billion john doe lawsuits. Since then, /. is about the only place that continues to hold hate for the RIAA - everyone else just buys their music, no matter how many 80 year old grandmothers they bankrupt.

Same for public survellance. You're videotaped hundreds of times a day. Initially it was uncomfortable, but now people just ignore and accept it.

To use another Simpsons analogy - take the time Apu was on Homer's lawn looking in the front window and Homer wanted him to leave:

Homer: Will you get off my lawn!?
Apu: Why don't you make me!
Homer: Why!?! Aw... I give up...

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[IAmTheDave]

That said, the past few years we have been dealing with an increasingly aggressive leadership only interested in helping big businesses, christian morals, and themselves.

You make the same mistake everyone makes - assuming the leadership give a shit about Christian morals. Religiously, this country does everything it can to bend over backwards for everyone except Christians.

The reason that government seems to support such Christian thought patterns is two-fold:

1. The Bible-Belt represents a huge, huge amount of votes
2. Many donators with deep pockets demand it.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that leadership themselves care about a Christian utopia. Just those who control money (and thus control politicians) do.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[itchy92]

The scariest part is that it works.

personal anecdote:
I'm getting a mattress delivered to my condo today (in Miami). Our management has a strict policy about reserving the elevator several days in advance, and will refuse any delivery not scheduled. So I was talking to the front desk security guard about it yesterday, and the exchange went something like this.

Me: ...I know you guys are ridiculously strict about your service elevator.
Him: Yeah, but don't you prefer it this way? I mean, we can keep track of anything coming in and out of the condos.
Me: Not really. Frankly, how is it any of your business what I'm bringing in and out of my condo?
Him: Well, it's for security, you know? Someone could easily bring in a bomb or something. If it happened to the World Trade Center, it could happen here. We've got families and... (all I remember is a faint buzzing noise from here on out)
Me: (incredulous stare with mouth agape)

... So this guy just told me that we have to schedule our service elevators to protect against terrorism. And he compared some random high-rise condo in Miami to the World Trade Center. Whether that's his personal view, or that of the management, I don't really know or care. I was absolutely dumbfounded that this would be the reason they cite.

And apparently it's okay to bring bombs into my condo building, as long as I schedule it beforehand.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[IAmTheDave]

But Democratic legislators do break away from the party line more often than Republican ones do. This is a simple fact, easily verified by a look at voting records.

Recently this is true, because the Republicans hold a majority just about everywhere it wants to. There was more dissention during the Clinton years.

The party in power demands to stay in power an often call all collegues to mindless loyalty in order to keep it that way. If the democrats were on a five year majority rule bender, you can bet they'd demand the same party-line zombie-like loyalty the Republicans do now.

Although, then THEY would be embroiled in scandal with the likes of Abramov, Delay, etc.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[0x0000]

the past few years we have been dealing with an increasingly aggressive leadership only interested in helping big businesses, christian morals, and themselves.

Go ahead and say it: The past few years we have been dealing with a Totalitarian Regime that aspires to be a dictatorship - and they are winning, mostly (imo) because no one will say it out loud. The fact it's a dictatorship that calls itself "Christian" (instead of "Islamist") doesn't make it any less a dictatorship, and doesn't make it less Wrong.

The "Kingdom of Heaven" ("Kingdom of God"/whatever) may be paradise, but it's still monarchy - not a democracy, or even a Republic - so what do your Christian ideals tell you about Democracy - that it's Evil, or that it's good enough until Jesus gets back?

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[feral_wombat]

Screw that. Criticize early, criticize often. Some moron introduced a bill that will probably pass unless a huge amount of people rally against that. Frankly, the chances of that happening are pretty slim, but that's the only hope we have. So outsiders, please do criticize us loudly, early and often. Don't wait until it is too late.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

"OK, so they do create a few multi-millionaire "artists" that serve the same function as lottery winners: keeping the suckers playing)"

Rarely. The way they do business is by advancing millions of bucks to artists, thereby getting them used to a certain lifestyle they could never support, and thereby locking them into multiple album contracts which the execs control. If your albums don't do well, they can sit on releasing the remaining albums, leaving the artist with no means to exit the contract, but no means to earn an income either. Eventually the debts are called in and the artist has to file for bankruptcy.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[realityfighter]

The reason for the unified front is, if you want to be considered to run as a Republican and get Republican money to run for office, you have to agree to abide by every plank of the party platform. This includes support for the far-fetched, the unconstitutional and the irrational. (For example, the Texas GOP included clauses in their platform that called for de-anonymizing the people who report to Child Protective Services.) The GOP has a lot of campaign money, and if you choose to run against them, that money will work against you. So it's not surprising that they're more "unified" as a party. They money is flowing in that direction.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's because America is lazy now. Change requires work, and America is just lazy. It's easier to bitch over coffee how Bush wiretaps then it is to actually do something - even as simple as writing your representatives."

The problem is exactly the opposite...Americans are TOO BUSY!
Do you wonder why you see people in the middle east out protesting (like with the cartoons) in the middle of the week?
It's because they DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO!
They don't have jobs!

It's hard to be politcally active after working 60 hours/week, then dealing with your kids/wife/friends/whatever.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[aftk2]

At the risk of coming off like a pedantic twat:

1. Type "Taxachusetts" into Google.
2. Click "I'm Feeling Lucky."
3. Learn that, as of 2004, Massachusetts has lower taxes than almost 70% of the country.
4. Realize that anyone seriously using the term Taxachusetts either has a political axe to grind, or is somewhat misinformed.

(Profit.)

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[xanalogical]

> The problem is exactly the opposite...Americans are TOO BUSY!

If one isn't outraged enough to do something about it, you aren't really outraged, just inconvenienced. Most Americans are only inconvenienced, and adapt.

> Do you wonder why you see people in the middle east out protesting in the middle of the
> week? It's because they DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO! They don't have jobs!

So that's why the recent immigration protests were so well attended - those people had nothing else to do? I assure many of those people (not only illegals protested BTW) have jobs, and took a cut in income to protest. Many are them are hourly - no work, no pay. Yet still they walked off their jobs and marched.

> It's hard to be politcally active after working 60 hours/week, then dealing with your kids/wife/friends/whatever.

Uh, those busy Americans, if they're so busy working, -do- have vacation days? And some personal days? And maybe even days w/o pay? They could spend some of those to be politically active.

And since when is "dealing with your friends" (not wife/kids) an obligation that overrides your duties as a citizen? And perhaps those people listed can actually get involved as well, and the kids can be taught political activism as part of being a family?

Those in power have those "busy" people right where they want them -- in the office working overtime and in front of the TV.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Catbeller]

1. Create draconian laws to deal with "terrorism". Suspend the constitution, create secret prisons and torture chambers, kidnap thousands of people. Hooray for us against evil terrorism.

2. Redefine terrorism to whatever pisses the government off.

3. Police state achieved.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Some_Llama]

maybe because when you are old and senile and sucking up all of the medicare, my 2-5-7-80 children will be footing your bill?

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[jc42]

To quote, 'quite frankly, fund terrorism activities,' according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

For the benefit of readers outside the US, we should perhaps note that in American political speech, "frankly" is a code word meaning that what follows is an intentional lie. The phrase "quite frankly" means it's a damned lie.

It's sorta the Washington equivalent of "wink, wink; nudge, nudge" for you Monty Python fans.

Amerika

[bazmail]

What are you americans going to do about this? You are always bleating on about how free your contry is, but you always seem to let stuff like this happen. What gives? No other country in the world is as repressive in this regard.

Time after time you sit back and watch as newer and wackier laws are passed, each one erodes your freedoms more and more. You guys crack me up.

Re:Amerika

[ArsenneLupin]

but you always seem to let stuff like this happen.

Don't worry. Just wait two years, and the same kind of law will be passed as an EU directive.

Remember, EU is the place where "Intellectual Property" without restrictions was to be protected by the new constitution on the same level (or rather: above) more usual constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech and right to live.

Re:Amerika

[HuguesT]

Sorry, where did you get this "information" ?

Anyway, the old "new" constitution is dead in the water right now thanks to French and Dutch voters. ATM the EU is seriously annoying Microsoft over its overly militant use of IP to squash competition, whereas we all know how it worked out in the US.

I wouldn't count the old EU out just right now.

Re:Amerika

[bri2000]

I wouldn't. For all its whining about US cultural imperialism when it comes to IP law the EU will, I believe, ultimately always follow the US's lead. Since once it's passed in the US it's much easier for the IP companies to lobby and demand that the EU needs similar measures in the name of "harmonisation" and "a level playing field", and the more Americaphile member's of the EU (like Blair) are lobbied by US officials directly.

Sure, the constitution's dead (for now, I'm sure once the French domestic situation has calmed down a bit they'll get it through somehow) but that doesn't stop our equivalent of the DCMA, the IP directive passed last year being in full force and effect. While the EU may be reeling from the blows of last year it's still very powerful and, because of the lack of democratic accountability, it's far easier for lobbyists to get their own way in Brussels even when individual nations may strongly reject specific proposals.

Re:Amerika

[ArsenneLupin]

.. but... it was voted down,

Unfortunately, it was only voted down in two whoopping countries. It passed in almost all others.

as was software patents.

Yes, but softpats were only voted down after years of huge efforts by the FFII and others. During the same period, we couldn't concentrate on other, similar issues (IP Enforcment, EUCD), which passed. Unfortunately, we didn't have enough resources to fight several battles at once :-(

Re:Amerika

[HuguesT]

The article in question says :

Article II-77 Right to property

1. Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. The use of property may be regulated by law insofar as is necessary for the general interest.

2. Intellectual property shall be protected.

Hardly something I'd say would be offensive.

The constitution is "on hold" because it's pretty much evident that today it would be defeated, at least in the UK, Sweden and Denmark, after the two "no". People have longer memories than individuals, I'm pretty sure the constitution will not pass in its present state.

Mind you I'm of the opinion that even the "old" constitution is many times better than what passes for rules in the present EU.

The main problem is that the constitution is for the most part unreadable. No one can understant what's in there, short of making this undertaking one's career.

Re:Amerika

[ArsenneLupin]

2. Intellectual property shall be protected.
Hardly something I'd say would be offensive.

It is patently offensive (no pun intended), if you compare it with the corresponding paragraph in the US constitution:

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;

You note that the US text severly limits scope of intellectual property:

• it is limited in time
• it should only be upheld if it helps foster progress

Both safeguards are lacking from the EU constitution. The sentence about Intellectual property is incredibly short and blunt, without any ifs and buts.

The IP article in the EU constitution paves the road to perpetual copyrights and software patents.

Most other stipulations in the EU constitution have all kinds of exceptions where the rights granted should not apply. Not so intellectual property (which is not even defined! ... and so could conceivably be redefined in the future to include all kinds of corporate rights of which aren't even yet included into today's nightmares...)

Re:Amerika

[TheRaven64]

softpats were only voted down after years of huge efforts by the FFII

My MEP is an active member of the FFII, and she's got my vote next time around. Anyone else who wants software patents to stay dead should find a candidate with similar views and vote for them.

Re:Amerika

[HuguesT]

I think you are deluding yourself if you think the US article has any teeth.

The EU paragraph doesn't say *how* the IP shall be protected, I'll grant you that, however the corresponding paragraph in the US constitution, while nicer on the outside, has been shown in effect to be just empty words.

Software patents in particular in the US have not been shown to foster progress, and copyrights on the other hand have infinite terms for all intents and purposes, so the ifs and buts serve strictly no purpose. If you start quaking in fear because some sentence leaves the door potentially open to some invented evil, soon your only option is to live in a cavern for fear of your own shadow.

Recall that the EU software patents are still illegal. The "offending" broad sentence in the EU constitution is not a blank check to suddenly making them legal and never would have been. The constitution should be a simple text defining broad principles. No one in their right mind would like IP rights not to be protected. The EU constitution says that they shall be, and leaves it to the democratically elected institutions to work out the details. Potentially these can change with time. In my opinion this is how it should be.

I'll remind you that last year these democratically elected EU institutions worked extremely well to defeat a remarkably well orchestrated attempt by lobby groups to impose US-style software patents in Europe. There were enough alert people to cry foul on all the dirty tricks and ATM the lobbyists are licking their wounds. They'll be back, but for the moment I'm not convinced they will necessarily win.

I'll take debate and a functioning democracy anytime over nicely worded sentences in arbitrary constitutions. Supposedly the old USSR constitution was a model of enlightened principles. Look how it turned out. It didn't prevent the gulag.

Re:Amerika

[shenanigans]

It's because most americans have very strongly ingrained hopes and optimisms regarding their country. A sort of implied attitude is "We survived Vietnam, we survived watergate, we will survive Irak and Bush, nothing REALLY bad is going to happen."

In these kind stories you always see a lot of comments along the line of "oh those crooked politicians" and "Bush is the worst president ever", and similar when discussing the DMCA, Irak, the patriot act, the budged deficits, TIA, gitmo, etc. But I never (or seldom) see any discussion of the long term ramifications of these things (just "they are bad"), and litte (realistic) discussion of the future. Ask yourself, where is America in 20 years?

Perhaps most americans just have no reference point in history to relate these event to. Perhaps it's because most americans have never experienced fascism and oppression in their life time (or their grand parents life time) like most of Europe has. Perhaps they believe that the US economy will always prevail in the end. Or perhaps most americans just think the whole world is in a backslide, while in reality it is for the most part just the USA. And that might actually be a harder pill to swallow. I don't know.

Re:Amerika

[Bloke down the pub]

You note that the US text severly limits scope of intellectual property:
it is limited in time
it should only be upheld if it helps foster progress

It does. But nobody seems to take any notice of it, which is why people are able to patent business processes, naturally ocurring organisms and the wheel.

Both safeguards are lacking from the EU constitution. The sentence about Intellectual property is incredibly short and blunt, without any ifs and buts.

I agree it doesn't say they're limited. But it doesn't say they're unlimited either. In fact, it doesn't really say much at all.

Re:Amerika

[Golden Section]

Unfortunately, it was only voted down in two whoopping countries. It passed in almost all others.

Most EU countries didn't have a referendum on it. Most other countries wouldn't let their citizens' view influence the politicians on their vote. A colossal exposure of the wide gap between the views of politicians and the views of voters.

Re:Amerika

[Xeth]

That which is built decays, that which is loved endures.

The United States Constitution is a wonderful document. It struck a careful balance, and made explicit protection against specific fallacies that seem to be cropping up lately ("You have no constitutional right to X..."). The problem is, nobody seems to give a damn. No matter how cleverly worded it was, it won't make a difference if the people don't read it, understand it, and force the government to abide by it.

The definition of terrorism

[scsirob]

Is it me or are people, better yet, politicians forgetting what terrorism really is? Terrorism is spreading fear by inflicing selective pain to force a decision. This kind of bill does exactly that. It inflicts pain on small businesses trying to make a living, and forcing everyone to pay up to the big companies and patent/IP leeches. Probably the same leeches that sponsor this senator..

Let me guess, everyone opposing this bill will be labelled as 'unpatriotic', 'pro-terrorism' etc?!?

Fund terrorism?

[reldruH]

Why is it that every time a politician wants to get something passed that's obviously not going to be good, they do it because it 'funds terrorism'? Next thing you know politicians are going to fund some study saying that open source funds terrorism.

Oh, wait...

Re:Fund terrorism?

[plankrwf]

Well, obviously open source is going to help terrorits:
imagine all the extra time they need not spend on system administration:
obviously they would have more time actually planning terroristic attacks!

Would be a thought though: give all the Al Quaida's of this world the newest of newest of computers
with all the newest propriotory software, just to see them fail as a terroristic
club seeing that they spend all their time actually getting their systems up and running.
We would see newsitems like:
ThisJustIn: Bin Laden proclaims next suicide hit to occur moments after Vista finally released.

Roel

Re:Fund terrorism?

[mwvdlee]

Yes, but either child porn causes terrorism or terrorism causes child porn, so they obviously lead to the same thing.

Just one name...

[Intosi]

I'll give you just one name to remember: McCarthy.

give me example

[mapkinase]

IP crime' which which are used to 'quite frankly, fund terrorism activities,' according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Does anybody remember a case that even remotely supports that assertion? Any free-swappping IRA members?

Re:give me example

[Kjella]

Does anybody remember a case that even remotely supports that assertion?

Nope, and even if you did the causality is really spurious. Real IP crime, by which I don't mean filesharing but counterfeit goods sold for profit, is a way to earn money. Terrorism is as far as I can tell a money sink, it costs money. Even if you find some case somewhere that says "Pirate funded terrorism", is it more common than "Regular worker funded terrorism out of his paycheck" or "Pirate funded luxurious lifestyle"? I think not.

Re:give me example

[mapkinase]

Thank you for finding this. Did you also actually read the link you provided?

Citing from your link:

Specific examples:
Northern Ireland:

It is unknown how much of the money generated by these counterfeiting operations goes to terrorist groups and how much is retained as criminal profit.

No examples.
Kosovo

It is suspected that funds generated from IPC benefit both criminal organizations and extremist groups.

No examples.
Chechen separatists. Russian officials = unreliable source.
North African radical fundamentalists terrorists in Europe.

Sympathizers and militants of these groups may engage in a range of criminal activity including IPC.

And whole bunch of similar generic handwaving.
Al-Qaeda.

The investigation into a shipment of fake goods from Dubai to Copenhagen, Denmark, suggests that al-Qaeda may have indirectly obtained financing through counterfeit goods.

Basically every software pirate in any Arabic country by definition is an al-Qaeda supporter. (a) he is a counterfieter = bad guy. (b) he is an Arab (which is bad per se) (c) bad + Arab = al-Qaeda.

Hizbullah. Again, modality of language speaks for itself.

Main source of any "terrorist" activity are sympathisers as, by the way, correctly pointed out in the cited Interpol report. Any activity that involves undetected cash could be used. If you want to suppress funding of any illegal activity you have to go to the main root: shadow economy. Every business should be transparent. Countries should adopt rigorous independent auditing procedures for the business operating from their territory.

I suspect that intellectual property rights violations are very minor portion of the support of illegal activities.

Best way to stop RIAA, MPAA and others is very simple: boycott. Do not buy and do not use what they are selling. It will lead to two results (a) you will be no longer a criminal (b) RIAA, etc will have to change.

Terrorism!

[kestasjk]

How can I put this in a way politicians will understand?

Misinformed articles fund terrorism!

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[hackwrench]

Because when your only choices are between two guys that can be bought and sold so cheaply, that's what you pick. Voter turnout is low for this among other reasons.

More benefits

[plankrwf]

And there are even more benefits to the new bill: not only it is good against terrorism,
it also helps against child pornography.

Oh, and against overweight.

Roel

Since 9/11

[Silver Sloth]

anyone trying to pass a contraversial bill uses the spectre of terror to stifle dissent. The relevant quote is

During a speech in November, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales endorsed the idea and said at the time that he would send Congress draft legislation. Such changes are necessary because new technology is "encouraging large-scale criminal enterprises to get involved in intellectual-property theft," Gonzales said, adding that proceeds from the illicit businesses are used, "quite frankly, to fund terrorism activities."

What's being suggested is that MP3 downloaders are directly responsible for suicide bombings! We know how rediculous this is but...

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Because when your only choices are between two guys that can be bought and sold so cheaply, that's what you pick.

Sorry - I find that argument quite irritating.

You have plenty of choice. A vote for a third candidate does not throw your vote away - even if that candidate is not elected, an increase in other party's showing sends a message to the incumbrents.

Voter turnout is low for this among other reasons.

Voter turnout is low because of stupidity & apathy. People need to understand that you do not have to get your party voted in to make a difference

Say you're a libertarian (I'm not), you feel that there is no point voting as your candidate will never get elected, but if the candidates percentage of the vote is 1% one year, then 1.2%, then 3%, etc, the major parties will notice that & attempt to make their policies closer to the libertarian (or whatever) ideal.

Knowledge based economy

[Anonymous Coward]

" Permits wiretaps in investigations of copyright crimes, trade secret theft and economic espionage...."

You decide your economy will be 'knowledge' based, rather than making and selling things.
You create a bunch of artificial rights, that concentrate money in the hands of a few companies and remove them from everyone else.
But it doesn't work, your economy becomes uncompetitive, runs up a huge trade deficit. The companies become fat and lazy and the world doesn't buy their shit products.
Your currency can't sustain it and starts to fall.
You have to grab assets, oil! Iraq here we come, oil can save us.
But there isn't enough oil in Iraq and they don't elect the leader you chose for them.
What can you do to make this knowledge based economy work? Try bigger penalties, more spying on the population, 10 years in prison for minor infringement. Force through treaties on trade partners, desparate measures are called for to prevent the USA economy from collapsing the way the Soviet Union did when it spent too much money.

Re:Knowledge based economy

[WindBourne]

Force through treaties on trade partners, desparate measures are called for to prevent the USA economy from collapsing the way the Soviet Union did when it spent too much money.

Yes, lots of similiarites. USSR was actually bankrupted in the 70's by Nixon and Carter. Reagan did nor bury USSR, but kept them going by restoring such things as grain trading. What is interesting about this, is that the argument can be made that had we allowed the USSR to fall in early 1981, then it would have been very bloody (perhaps for us). But Reagan's massive giveaway to USSR allowed them to survivie while decaying slowly.

I have wondered if that is what is happening to us. Basically, China and Middle east are propping up Regan and now Bush's outrageous deficts (all of Poppa Bush's and Clinton's efforts was wiped out). Sooner or later, China will have the other nations dependant on them and we will be in the way. At that time, I suspect that all the funding will be pulled and we will tumble as hard as USSR or will elect to start a war.

Re:Knowledge based economy

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to be generally assumed in the financial markets that the US will no longer be the economic world leader by about 2030-2040. The US is now entering a period of decline, like the British Empire.

The problem is the now obvious tendency of the US to start wars for internal political reasons. I suspect that as America becomes more powerless in the economic world we will see more military actions in a vain attempt to boost America's image of itself. These will be expensive - no-one else will fund them, so I suspect we will see pretty blatent attempts to seize natural resources in an attempt to stave off financial ruin.

Bought by Red Hat?

[Anonymous Coward]

FTA:
The SIIA's board of directors includes Symantec, Sun Microsystems, Oracle, Intuit and Red Hat.

Why is Red Hat buying politicians to expand the DMCA? Aren't they supposed to be the good guys?

Anybody else upset.

[Anonymous Coward]

That Red Hat is on the board of directors of some
organisation (SIAA) that supports this bill. I know
I will now be recommending any other linux vendor for
enterprise support.

Re:Anybody else upset.

[symbolic]

I find it rather ironic that Redhat would come within a mile of such a fetid mess. I'm also surprised (and quite saddened) that Sun Microsystems is involved.

Support http://www.ipaction.org/ - it might be one of the only practical ways to get something done about this kind of nonsense.

Re:Anybody else upset.

[azhrei_fje]

Wrong acronym for the organization. Instead, it's SIIA (Software Information & Industry Association), but you're right -- Mark Webbink from RedHat is the chairman of the board! Time for me to write some letters and make a phone call or two...

http://www.siia.net/membership/board.asp

Re:Anybody else upset.

[init100]

I've not seen any such endorsement on the SIAA site. I'm not accusing you of spreading FUD, but I am extremely interested in verifying for myself that Red Hat, Sun, etc. are actively supporting this bill.

It surely seems to be true:

• The article mentions SIIA halfway down the page.
• The SIIA board membership page lists Mark Webbink as the chair of the board.

So it certainly seems like it. I think that phone calls to everyone I know that uses RHEL would be in order.

Now computers will be illegal

[Bomarc]

From the article:

"Smith's measure would expand those civil and criminal restrictions. Instead of merely targeting distribution, the new language says nobody may "make, import, export, obtain control of, or possess" such anticircumvention tools if they may be redistributed to someone else. "

Now one can not make, import, export, obtain control of, or possess computers, as they are the primary tool for anticircumvention. (Copyright infringement). I've always wanted to sell software somewhere, available for download. If someone isn't authorized to download it (and does), contact MS and tell them that they are selling software that violates the DMCA, (by selling software the circumvents copy protection) and to stop selling all copies of Windows.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Znork]

You guys really need to get rid of the winner takes all system and get proportional representation. The vulnerability and failings of two-party democratic systems have become obvious; it's damn cheap to buy two candidates, and the purchasers know they wont have to buy anyone else.

These people dont have sense of proportion

[unity100]

Kill a man, you get 20 years in jail. 'Steal' 20 bucks worth of software, you get 10. People should be made pass an iq test before being admitted into congress or legal services. It is apparent that many of the 'lawmakers' do not have any tint of the sense of 'proportionality'.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[ag0ny]

People should be made pass an iq test before being admitted into congress or legal services. It is apparent that many of the 'lawmakers' do not have any tint of the sense of 'proportionality'.

Wrong. They're smart and know very well what they're doing. The problem are the uninformed, uneducated masses who rush to vote for them as soon as any proposed new law has either "terrorism" or "children" attached to it.

They're taking advantage of this, and there's nothing you can do to avoid it, other than informing and educating as many people as you can. Do you think it's a coincidence that the education budget in the US is being cut?

I pity you Americans. Your country is going down the drain.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[ArsenneLupin]

Kill a man, you get 20 years in jail. 'Steal' 20 bucks worth of software, you get 10.

Solution: kill the man who saw you steal that 20 bucks worth of software, if you think you have a 50% chance of not getting caught.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[Mordaximus]

Steal' 20 bucks worth of software, you get 10.

Ha, wrong! Steal it, and you get a minor charge like maybe shoplifting, or theft under $x. Copy it, and you get 10 years. The obvious solution is to stop copying software, and just steal it off of the store shelves.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[kaeru]

Well last week in Malaysia, a US government sponsored IPR enforcement roundtable had a presentation from the MPA the local equivalent of the MPAA.

Since the "value" of pirated IP was higher than that of narcotics, they stated that crime lords are moving into piracy industry from narcotics. They then put up a slide that put side by side figures showing that the punishment of IP theft was not a strong enough deterrent as compared to narcotics. As some of you may know, drug trafficking here in South East Asia carries a mandatory death sentence.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[scaryjohn]

Wrong. They're smart and know very well what they're doing. The problem are the uninformed, uneducated masses who rush to vote for them as soon as any proposed new law has either "terrorism" or "children" attached to it.

I wasn't alive back in the 60's, but the Congressman from my hometown basically invented the un-germane rider. And now everyone does it. Back in the Gingrich days, they tried to stop riders to big appropriations bills, but I guess either the initiative failed or people found a loophole. Anyway, maybe our legislators need to pull a page from this playbook. Imagine a "Safeguarding Liberty for Our Children Act" that, y'know, pushes back on stuff like USAPATRIOT. I mean, it'll result in the Anti-Terrorism Drought Relief Act of 2442... but it looks like we're headed down that road anyway.

Now if only we had some legislators of our own.

Well, I guess we have Boucher... and it only takes one to introduce a bill. But you need more than that to get it passed.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[Grishnakh]

The rest of us - those who are keeping quiet - are making plans to leave. Know of some kind countries that allow American immigrants without alot of hassle?

Good question. Here's some ideas:

Australia and New Zealand - hard to immigrate to because of anti-immigration laws. But you should be able to get in with a big bankroll, or a tech job lined up. They're English-speaking, which is a big plus, and not too different from American culture. Also very underpopulated, which is nice if you want to live in the boonies. However, they (esp. Australia) seem to be America's lapdog currently, passing a lot of the same stupid laws.

Mexico - lots of American expatriates in the southern part, esp. Mexico City. Probably more a retirement destination, since there aren't exactly a lot of jobs or business opportunities there due to the terrible economy. It used to be that you couldn't own land there as a non-Mexican, although I think this may have changed recently. You'll have to learn Spanish, however.

Costa Rica - there's a lot of American companies setting up shop down there, and it seems to be much more stable than other Central American countries and have a decent economy unlike Mexico. I don't know much else, except you'll have to learn Spanish here as well.

Brazil - seems to be a rising economic power. Lots of land, growing economy. You'll have to learn Portuguese.

Canada - great place to live by most accounts, though people complain about the long waits for healthcare. Standard of living is high, though cost of living is high too. It's horribly cold in the east and central portions, but British Columbia is nice and fairly mild (and also more expensive). However, a HUGE problem with Canada is that its biggest trading partner is the USA; about 85% of its exports go there. So if the US economy collapses, the Canadian economy will go right along with it unless they fix this problem. Another big plus: you don't have to learn another language unless you move to Quebec, where you'd do well to learn French.

Various Western European countries - you'll have to learn other languages unless you go to the UK. I'm not sure how feasible immigration is however; I know your money doesn't go nearly as far there, and you can probably forget about owning a house.

Eastern Europe: you'd definitely have to learn a new language or two, but the cost of living is probably very low here.

Everything against the benefit of the few

[omeg]

It seems that according to the US government, everything that opposes the benefit of the few is ultimately one of the many forms of terrorism. This is the regime that the people you voted for are upholding. It bothers me that they can get away with it, but I guess that it's not possible for America to start using a pluriform multi-party system which I firmly believe would help keep the amount of insane propositions like this one at bay, like it effectively does in the Netherlands.

I guess that at this point there is not much pouting is going to do to help!

How to control the populace

[Bushcat]

1) Write laws that will catch everyone sometime.
2) Trawl for lawbreakers at your leisure.
3) Pick 'em up when it's suitable.
Someone needs a whack with a cluestick. It's not the way to run a (decent) country.

Scare Tactics

[zaguar]

OH NOES!! TEH TEROORISTS IS COMING!!!one1! WITH PIRATED DVD'S

Sorry about that, but this is going too far. Terrorism and child pornography are bad, yes, but attempts to prevent them are not worth the loss of our rights. In the other story about this kind of thing, I forgot who said it, but it went something like this - "Terrorism and Child Porn are the root passwords to the constitution". It's a sad time for the land of the free.

Re:The old chestnut about funding terrorism

[ronanbear]

1 Rip collection of CDs and DVDs
2 Upload torrents to botnet
3 ???
4 Profit!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

What causes terrorism

[Shohat]

Not IP , or child porn , lack of prayer or homosexuals .
WarMongering Idiots on one side and Religious Fundamentalist Psychos on the other cause terrorism .
So how about the WMI&RFP restriction Act ?

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I'm sorry, but 1% or 1.2% is not going to make a dent in the conviction of the larger parties. As long as you don't get up to double digits you ARE throwing your vote away. But I don't see anyone waiting 40 years to get there!!

What you need to understand is that voting for either of republicans or the democrats is the REAL waste of a vote.

The two parties are IDENTICAL except for a couple knee-jerk issues that make good sound-bytes but have zero to do with the day to day operation of the government.

I know nobody who is willing to wait that long when things need to change NOW

And by voting for either major party NOW, they guarantee that there will be no significant changes EVER.

string annoyingPeople=terrorist;

[Savage-Rabbit]

I wonder if the Bush Administration realizes what its rhetoric sounds like. Copyright infringement = terrorism? Marijuana = terrorism?

<rant>
They are simply sticking with what worked in the hysteric political climate of the recent past when all you needed to do to get a law passed was prefix the words 'anti terrorist' to every occurrence of the word 'legislation' and where you only had to accuse annoying groups of people of having 'links to Al Quaeda' or having 'Islamist sympathies' (Incidentally, what does that make the US based Christian fundamentalists? Christianists!?!) to ensure you could declare open season on them. This is probably just an attempt to see how far you can take this tactic. Fortunately people are getting wise to the ploy, it is only unfortunate it has taken so long.
</rant>

Re:string annoyingPeople=terrorist;

[Lucractius]

*seconds the compliment*

time people realised that "post-911" is the biggest pile of garbage ... we are experiencing not some kind of ungodly "terrorist age" ... its an age where big fat goverment thinks it can keep pissing people off... and thats whats causing the terrorism... address the cause not treat the symptoms people

Why not just get it over and done with...

[Kjella]

...and introdouce this "justice" system and get it over with. Five years, ten years, death penalty... Seems to me that Congress had watch too much TNG and think that'll make the world happy and crime-free.

First age long prison sentences, then "convicted felon", "sex offender"... I'm sure it won't be long before they invent a "pirate registry" too. I read in the recent discussion about kiddie porn about a woman who had been convicted at 10 for "molesting" her younger siblings and had to stay on the sex offenders' registry until she was 37. I call that "fucked for life", why not put a horrified little ten year old girl in the chair while you're at it.

There's always been a good principle in law enforcement that the penalty should fit the crime. In the US, it seems to me that the current idea is "Ok so we got a million criminals and only catch hundred, but we're going to make up for it by making those hundred pay for it." as if that would make things just. That's not justice, that is simply revenge, even if it's incorporated in law. Because you can't reach those you want to reach, you lash out at those few you can. That still doesn't make it just for those that get away nor for those that get caught.

Re:Why not just get it over and done with...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not justice, that is simply revenge, even if it's incorporated in law.

The US justice system has long been a tool for revenge; just look at the death penalty. It's value as a deterrent has long been discredited, which belies it's true purpose--to make true patriotic god-fearing folk feel nice.

Re:Why not just get it over and done with...

[Abcd1234]

Why should society bare the burden of feeding and housing such individuals? Why should guards be forced to risk their lives to deal with such individuals? Why should those who view others lives, repeatedly, and consistently as having no value, be treated any differently?

Simple. Because, if an individual does not have the moral right to kill, then neither does society at large. Alternatively, I would argue that the existence of the death penalty demeans the society, as, collectively, those people are saying that a human life is subject to the whims of a jury.

Too wishy-washy? How 'bout the fact that wrongful convictions have occured many times, and in recent history, no less, despite the existence of high tech forensic tools, etc. Are you willing to bet the life of an innocent human being in order to save a few dollars?

But wait, that's the best part. It doesn't save any money. Combine the cost of the actual execution with the cost of the appeals process, housing the individual on death row, etc, and guess what? It costs as much, if not more, than it does to simply imprison the person for life.

But that's not all! The death penalty isn't even handed down consistently. Racial minorities are far more likely to get the death penalty than a caucasian individual. Which only furthers the point that, when it comes down to it, humans are flawed and shouldn't be allowed to determine who lives and who dies.

Finally, the death penalty doesn't actually deter crime. The US, despite the existence of the death penalty, has higher violent crime rates than most other developed nations. So, if it doesn't work, why bother?

And yet support of the death penalty persists. Despite the fact that it doesn't deter crime. Despite the fact that it's expensive. Despite the risks of killing innocent individuals thanks to wrongful convictions. Despite the fact that it's morally reprehensible. And why? Revenge. Which brings us back to the original point.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[TheRaven64]

In an enormous number of cases, the difference between winning an election and losing it can come down to 1-2% of the voters. If throwing some libertarian policies into their platform gives a republican/democrat candidate the chance to gain that 1-2% who voted libertarian last time, then it can win them the election.

Which leads to the obvious conclusion...

[hackwrench]

Voting at all guarantees that there will be no change ever. We need a war here peoples, or a shuffling of feet, a constitutional convention, a nationial strike, or something. Pretending that the current way of doing things is in any way legitimate is what results in there being no change ever. Casting a vote is just pretend.

Re:Which leads to the obvious conclusion...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

That is not an obvious conclusion. The obvious conclusion - at least to any reasonable adult - is that the only way to change is long and slow - that voting for 3rd parties for a few decades is the only thing that can make a difference.

kill the pig! kill the pig! kill the pig!

[Quirk]

It's not about Intellectual Property rights. It's not about Patents. It's not about copyrights. It's not about Digital Rights Management.

It's a tax grab.The government has found a way to create taxable value by fiat. The value of currency in modern capitalist states is by fiat. The creation of value by way of IP and Patents and DRM is by legislation, by fiat.

Maggy Thatcher introduced Value Added Tax, in Canada in the 80's the Conservatives introduced the GST. In America the federal government has created taxable value in IP. Remeber the /. article last week about a merger wherein the parties are underinvestigation because they undervalued the IP?

You can argue about civil liberties and the government will join in happy to count the number of angles dancing on the head of a pin.

When I was in grade school during summmer vacation I had to put in 2 weeks working on my grandparents farm. I was told it would build character. It build muscle mass if nothing else. One summer on the farm my uncle decided to butcher a pig. That side of the family is pioneer stock and has farmed the same area for 7 generations. They can make anything they need, including good German sausage. I'd never seen an animal butchered. The pig was tied to corral posts by 3 legs. One rear leg was left free. My uncle slit the pigs jugular and the pig kept kicking his one rear leg, obligingly pumping his blood out. The fuss being kicked up about the laws and civil liberties is the pig's back leg kicking furiously. The tax income is the blood.

Re:kill the pig! kill the pig! kill the pig!

[Fat Idiot]

Small point. While there is much to despise Thatcher for, this isnt one. VAT was introduced in the UK in 1973 as a replacement for sales tax. At that time Thatcher was education secretary. She didnt become PM till 79.

Re:kill the pig! kill the pig! kill the pig!

[GrahamCox]

Maggy Thatcher introduced Value Added Tax

Errr... nope. VAT came in in 1973, long before Her Maggiesty.

Re:kill the pig! kill the pig! kill the pig!

[???]

Interesting thought... I would argue that the issue is not taxation at all, but molly-coddling of an industry that keeps the current-account deficit from being recognized as a truly disastrous occurrence. IP-related areas are one of the few areas where the US trade balance is still on the export side. This is about keeping the world's eyes off of the mismanagement of economic and monetary policy in the United States.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Pieroxy]

If throwing some libertarian policies into their platform

You should read:

If throwing some libertarian policies into their campaign (and throwing it away just after)

One good example

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Ross Perot got a small fraction of the vote but suddenly everyone cared about the deficit (his pet issue) and we eventually got a balanced budget.

Re:One good example

[a_nonamiss]

Ross Perot got a small fraction of the vote

Don't kid yourself. Perot stood a real chance of winning the election in 1992. He took himself out of real consideration by dropping out of the race, then getting back in.

Re:One good example

[NormalVisual]

19% isn't a "small fraction", particularly in light of the power that the two major parties wield.

Crime & Punishment

[Venner]

>>Solution: kill the man who saw you steal that 20 bucks worth of software, if you think you have a 50% chance of not getting caught.

Although that sounds funny, I'd like to point out that is exactly what happened during the Dark Ages. The classic example was when stealing bread was punishable by death, rather than the desired effect of deterring crime, the murder rate increased dramatically. If you might die for stealing, you might as well kill the person too and decrease your chance of getting caught.

Punishments have to fit the crime or they serve no valid purpose.

Re:Crime & Punishment

[Garse Janacek]

Exactly. It bothers me when people excuse these ridiculous punishments under the justification of "Well, if you choose to break the law then you can't complain about the punishment." Yes you can. A just society should always have punishments appropriate and proportionate to the severity of the crime.

An example of this principle that is often misunderstood in modern times is the Old Testament rule of "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." This phrase is associated with brutality and revenge, but actually it is a limit on the severity of punishments that for its time (and for most times and places since then, unfortunately) was quite merciful. It explicitly rules out the example you give of executing someone for stealing bread, or even for stealing something much more expensive. By this standard, the penalty for "stealing" copyrighted material should be comparable to the value of the material stolen. The law right now is so far beyond that it's scary.

And there are the other objectors who say "Yes, but if the penalty was that minor then it wouldn't be enough of a disincentive to copyright violators" -- but the primary purpose of just laws is not to serve as a disincentive to bad behavior (let alone that more severe punishments doesn't even correlate directly with less crime, as in your example). Even if, by instituting an instant death sentence for copyright violation, we were able to lower copyright violation to 1% of its current levels, this would not be acceptable, because death is not a proportionate punishment for that crime. Similarly, 10 years in prison, though a good deal more lenient than death, is grossly disproportionate to the offense that will yield it.

Does such a punishment deter crime? Not as much as you'd think. But who cares? The point is that it is an immoral punishment. The ends do not justify the means. People should be punished because of the wrongs that they committed, not as an example to scare other people out of misbehaving. People who break laws are still people, not some "criminal" class that becomes subhuman and is therefore unworthy of justice. And "justice" doesn't just mean "bad things happen to people who break laws." It should mean that those who break laws will receive a punishment appropriate to their specific actions, and it is poor sympathy for fellow human beings to ignore what happens to them because "they broke the law, so they had it coming."

Alright, rant over for now... suffice to say... I agree with you ;)

"Reasonable adult"

[hackwrench]

I have yet to encounter such a creature. In order for true changes to occur, you can't beg politicians to make them, you'll get nothing. You have to do it yourself.

Pity

[hackwrench]

Yeah well, not enough to help us escape to other countries and rebuild our lives... Oh, I forgot, the other countries are as bad off as we are. This whole forsaken planet is... well, it's forsaken! Everyone is one step away at being at each other's throats... no, that would be an improvement!

Alberto Gonzales is a terrorist

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Alberto Gonzales is a terrorist. He, along with congress, the senate, and our president are terrorizing our own people with fear and nonsense.

I suppose they couldnt have said "Intellectual property laws are to protect our children from child pornography and sexual predators", without making folks say "You're a fucking tool Albert"

So logically, its terrorists who are benefiting from copyright infringement.

How many want to bet that The Bush girls have illegal tunes on their ipod, or have used the old napster in their lifetime? How many want to bet that if ever caught, they would not be subject to the same laws that you and i would.

Alberto can go fuck his mother for all i care. This countries just about done.

Vote for a fucking third party candidate dam it!

If thats terrorism, then i support terrorists!

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I'm starting to wonder who the real terrorists are, and who the real freedom fighters are. William Wallace was a terrorist.

Trying to tell us something?

[arafel]

I like the way Slashdot carefully arranged "New Congressional Bill Makes DMCA Look Tame" and "Social Networking From Your Cell" next to each other. I had to read it twice before I realised it was a story about phones...

It's easier than shaking down Indian casinos

[SlappyBastard]

Cause, let's face it: the GOP is nothing but a fucking money racket.

The GOP is dedicated to grabbing every non-member of the 1% by the ankles and seeing what falls out of their pockets.

The upside? At least this isn't as bad as the shit they did on behalf of Jack Abramoff.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_200 5_08_07.php#006266/

Wait a second! Yes it is!

The recording industry is largely run by the mafia anyhow. So... It's just the same as the Indian gaming scandal.

I'm no big fan of either political party, but the Republicans are bad news.

Corruption-wise, this is the ugliest America has been since the end of the 19th Century.

This Law promotes Terrorism

[MasterOfGoingFaster]

It seems to me that the actions of the RIAA against suspected file sharers are an act of terrorism. Demanding payment under the threat of a lawsuit, just because your underage child downloaded music is simply a shakedown. This law will make it much easier and less costly for the RIAA to extort the single mothers, because they don't have to sue any longer - they just threaten to call the cops. That's a pretty efficient process, and greatly increases the cost-to-income ratio. Enough to afford to buy.... Say.... A congressman.

So how do you stop this? Perhaps all the Slashdot readers in Texas could:

1. Call and ask his staff why he wants to send single moms to jail?

2. Then call your local news station and ask why he wants to send single moms to jail?

3. Then call your local newspaper and ask why he wants to send single moms to jail?

Let's see if there's a Slashdot effect on the local media. Three phone calls is all it takes.

http://lamarsmith.house.gov/

Call Rep. Smith at (202) 225-4236

If you're willing to bitch about it, how about makeing one or more phone calls?

Re:This Law promotes Terrorism

[MadJo]

It seems to me that the actions of the RIAA against suspected file sharers are an act of terrorism. Demanding payment under the threat of a lawsuit, just because your underage child downloaded music without using a computer is simply a shakedown.

So, fixed it for ya.

Re:This Law promotes Terrorism

[miller56]

Another way to get your voice heard--send an email to the committee that is going to take up the bill:

http://judiciary.house.gov/committeestructure.aspx ?committee=3

Have it folks, let your voice be heard instead of just ranting and bitching!

And so it begins...

[ArbiterOne]

Here we go. Under current law, Section 1201 of the law generally prohibits distributing or trafficking in any software or hardware that can be used to bypass copy-protection devices. Smith's measure would expand those civil and criminal restrictions. Instead of merely targeting distribution, the new language says nobody may "make, import, export, obtain control of, or possess" such anticircumvention tools if they may be redistributed to someone else. Like debuggers?

They do take a "test" of sorts.

[Anonymous Coward]

"People should be made pass an iq test before being admitted into congress..."

While not an IQ test, they are made to take a test of sorts. It's called an oath. They only pass this because they cheat. Upon entering office they know they have no intention of doing as the constitution dictates. They don't want to anger the people who are bankrolling them into office. It's the ultimate quid pro quo giving more power and wealth to the officials and those who put them in power, while ultimately reducing the people to destitude. Anyone with half a brain would agree that securing copyrights, "for limited Times to Authors and Inventors..." shouldn't mean for 99 years or whatever it is now.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

From Wikipedia...

[babbling]

Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini (29 July 1883 - 28 April 1945) led Italy from 1922 to 1943. He created a Fascist state through the use of state terror and propaganda. Using his charisma, total control of the media, and intimidation of political rivals, he disassembled the existing democratic government system.

... sound familiar?

Re:From Wikipedia...

[lovebyte]

Very familiar, especially the charisma part.

Re:From Wikipedia...

[whathappenedtomonday]

Well, then we are all save. Since Bush clearly lacks charisma...

I know .. hope you are being sarcastic. Yet, here's how safe we really are:

The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism by Dr. Lawrence Britt

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14-defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even o

Re:From Wikipedia...

[LearnToSpell]

Undoing mods to post this, but oh well...

He has a Ph.D. in political science, making him, yes, both a doctor and a political scientist.

minus profit == fund criminals/terrorists???

[layer3switch]

If someone is downloading copyrighted material for free (after all, stealing is to get it for free, no?), how the fuck in the world does that fund anyone?

[-] profit = [+] fund criminals/terrorists ???
What mathmatically challenged Zeus's anus hair thought of that idiotic formula?

Shit like this should be on Al-jazeera.

*note to self: Hack voting machines and elect Nader and show those politicians what real terror looks like. :^O

Re:minus profit == fund criminals/terrorists???

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually a fairly simple equation, and it's one that the likes of the RIAA have been using for years to drive their business policy:

(1): All people who are not turing over all of their money are criminals who must be punished.
(2): Criminals are the same as terrorists. GWB says so.
(3): Not turning over your money means you will have more money available to you.
(4): (1)+(2) means that (3) is giving money to terrorists.

The bonus of this is of course, that we will now have legally mandated excessive consumerism, just like in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

What's the motive? Gimme an answer

[Cicero382]

It's beginning to look like the US government is *really* starting to lose it. And the UK gov doesn't seem too far behind (I'm English). I now live in Italy where we have our own fair share of stupid legislation (possibly more!) But there's one significant difference: If we think a law is really stupid - we ignore it - and so do the police (and, more importantly, their Mums and Dads).

My point is (OK, maybe a bit off topic); is it the law itself that's the problem, or the ability/willingness to enforce it? We're looking at motives, here.

WHY is this and other legislation being put forward? Obviously, it's nothing to do with the stemming of terrorism. Obviously the AG is getting involved for photo-ops and the like and probably hasn't a clue what it's all about. And, equally obviously, it hasn't a cat-in-hell's chance of making any significant difference to the problem it's supposed to address.

So the *ability* to enforce angle doesn't look so good. The very best they can expect is that they'll trawl up a few impoverished souls to throw to the wolves. The big operators will continue as before - and, anyway, there are plenty of existing laws to deal with their activities already.

That leaves *willingness* to enforce. Well, there is a cultural difference between here and the US. But it surely can't be that wide - and I thought the Yanks were a belligerent lot when it came to their rights. Sure, you're always going to get some jobsworth who will follow the rule book no matter how absurd it seems (suing grannies for grandkids' downloads springs to mind here)but the *entire* law enforcement community can't be stupid, can they? For the sake of argument (and peace of mind) let us assume "Nah!"

So, we come back to the actual law itself. If one accepts the previous points about ability/willingness to enforce, one has to ask what the hell is the law for?

I'd *really* like to know.

(Dons tin foil hat and hides under table).

mod parent rubbish

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Unfortunately, it was only voted down in two whoopping countries. It passed in almost all others.

What exactly is a whooping country? Anyway the way I read it in the papers at the time, these were the first countries where it was put up for referendum. After they failed to accept it, there was no point in continuing. It most certainly did not pass in all other countries.

Further...

[CptnHarlock]

In an enormous number of cases, the difference between winning an election and losing it can come down to 1-2% of the voters.

This is an interesting observation which both amuses and depresses me. One may wonder how come the elections in the USA normaly end up this way. Also in Europe we are seing the same tendencies (last Italian election Berlusconi vs Prodi).

Tha answer is that if you give a large group of people two very similar choices, like for example in te Pepsi/Coke chalanges, you end up very close to 50/50 ratios. If you let someone choose between eating a pizza and and a rotten rat - the results are way, way higher. So the "choice" we're given is not a real choice, it's more of a farce and an excuse to call the system a democracy. Thare is a nice saying for this in Swedish: "It's like choosing between Plague and Cholera".

What does this tell us then?
<SARCASM> That two-party politics (USA) is 100% improved one-party politics (USSR)!! </SARCASM>

Cheers... :|

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Aceticon]

Actually the problem runs much more deeply than voter apathy. The main reasons why the same old hands keep getting re-elected even when they are clearly selling custom-made laws to their corporate pals are:
- Gerrymandering - Politicians get to draw the lines of their own electoral districts. It's no surprise then that using information about registered voters they draw the lines in such a way as to maximizing their chances to get re-elected. Latelly they even use computer programs to do that.
- Incumbents have a lote more money to defends their seats than other candidates running for that seat. In the US, the candidate with the biggest advertising campaing is often the winner. This actually creates a perverse incentive for politicians to proposed/approve laws that benefict some companies: the more favours they do when holding office, the bigger the pot they will have when the time comes to defend their seat.

The result was that, in 2004, 95% of incumbents managed to keep their seats. It's hard to believe that only 1 in 20 politicians turned out to not be the best choice to represent their constituency ...

Honestly, seen from the point of view of someone who lives in a country where politicians get elected via proportional voting (Holland), the political system in the US looks far from being a real democracy. Not only do different votes have different weights (a person voting Democrat in an electoral district with 70% registered Republicans - or vice-versa - has precisely ZERO chance of changing the outcome of the vote) but the whole registered voters thing provides countless oportunities for social manipulation.

I've also lived in a country that not so long ago (32 year ago, tomorrow) went from dictatorship to democracy (Portugal) and were members of parliment are elected via electoral districts. This resulted in the same 2 parties alternating with each other as winner of the elections. After some decades of this the end result was:
a) Both parties have pretty much the same policies. In front of the cameras politicians criticise the other party, but in practice both parties do the same things.
b) There was an increase in career politicians. The kind that go to politics for money and power, not because they want to improve the country.
c) A "political class" was born (politicians actually use this expression). They stopped being representatives of their constituents and instead were pretty much just representing themselfs. This can clearly be seen in a number of laws designed to protect/benefict politicians (and lawyers).
d) An environment of unaccountability has installed itself. Those politicians currently in power do their best to cover the backs of those that were in power before them (as in, for example, burying legal investigations into corruption) because they know that when they change places the other ones will do the same for them. (thanks to the free press, at the moment there's a bit of a backslash against corruption)
e) A lot less people vote nowadays. Unless you're voting for one of the two parties that are always in government, you know that your vote counts for little. Voter turnout is now often below 50%, while in the years after the revolution it was more than 70%.

Still, at least there's no gerrymandering or voter registration: parliement seats actual change, even if mostly it's between the same two persons and latelly some young and inovative parties have been slowly growing, even if, thanks to electoral districts, their representation in the parliement is actually only HALF of what they would get in a proportional representation system ...

I'm confident...

[Xeth]

...that every penny of profit that The Pirate Bay takes in goes straight to Al-Qaeda.

Skipping ads would be illigal if this were passed

[Devistater]

Good ole Philips. They musta snuck this in
From the http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/hr2391 link, it lists all the stuff thats been shoved into this monstrosity. I just spotted this:

"H.R. 4586 The Family Movie Act
Now, the affirmative right to watch and skip parts of the content that a consumer has legally obtained only exists if certain conditions are met: no commercial or promotional ads may be skipped. ... This sets the functionality of the everyday VCR and TiVo on its head."

So now Philips has it all set, they have that patented technology to prevent ad skipping, and this will make it ILLIGAL to skip ads. Nice.

Re:but,but...

[zsau]

You misunderstand. Your legislative bodies are elected in a series of smaller winner-takes-all elections. In a proportional election, the proportion of the Representatives from one party would correspond to the proportion of votes for that party in the election; so if the vote went 40% Republican, 30% Democrat, 10% Libertarian, 10% Greens, 10% various independents,* distributed equally across the whole country, then you'd get approximately 40% Republicans, 30% Democrats, 10% Libertarians, 10% Greens, 10% various independents elected to the House of Reps. By contrast, that same election under the current First-Past-the-Post winner-takes-all system America has, you'd get 100% Republicans.

I think before this could be applied to America, you'd either need to significantly increase the size of your House of Representatives (so that states like South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming had at least three or four Representatives), or abandon voting by state (which might not actually be any harder to abandon than the first-past-the-post system you have).

* Obviously that you can have independents in a proportional system means I've simplified --- but you can probably read up more on it yourself if you're interested.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[mapkinase]

People seem to have wrong impression that they can influence something in "democratic" countries. It is illusion. They can change minor things.

The only thing that can change situation is when people are ready to fight to death for what they believe in. With government or whatever force is threatening their way of life.

Early American pioneers had guns and were ready to die defending their homes from the enemies. European nobles had their pride and their kings were only first among equals. Real roots of democracy are honour, dignity, self-respect and self-reliance.

Average American voter is dependent on too many things to be called a democratic constituent (wages, employers, sewage infrastructure...). In modern society everything is too much integrated, so people do not have real independence. As a result they are easily scared or manipulated by dictators or demagogues.

Real action always requires sacrifice. Writing to the congressman does not involve that.

EU

[olman]

The main point of contention was essentially that the EU regulations tend to be overly complex and byzantine. This is not what you want in a constitution, full stop.

In France about 20% of voters had some constitution-oriented reason for voting either way. Rest were voting about their goverment and lackluster representative democracy therein (france), employment, taxes, globalization..

Mostly what had little or nothing to do with the constitutional agreement.

Now the brussels good boys network is planning on indeed making KISS version of the constitutional agreement. So far so good, but in france they plan to pass it without vote this time around! That's one way to make sure the people won't vote wrong way, thought.

And height of absurdity is Italy's initiative to form "progressive core" of EU with france (and Germany) .. With the two worst heel draggers in Europe, I'd rather call that the anchor that's going to sink the whole union.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[swillden]

instant runoff

IRV doesn't help that much. It allows third parties to obtain more of a voice, which is good, but it doesn't really allow them to obtain power. As the strength of the third party grows to a point where it threatens to win an election, IRV still creates a situation where voters have to vote strategically for the major party they consider the lesser evil, rather than the third party they really prefer. Otherwise, they risk the third party candidate knocking out the more ideologically similar major party candidate, but without acquiring enough votes to defeat the other major party candidate.

Approval voting is better than IRV, and the Condorcet voting systems are even better. For legislative bodies, proportional representation is also an option, though it has downsides as well -- I prefer to vote for people, not parties.

You are so wrong

[Maximilio]

The two parties are IDENTICAL except for a couple knee-jerk issues that make good sound-bytes but have zero to do with the day to day operation of the government.

No, I'm sorry, I can clearly tell the difference between having Republicans in charge of my government, and having Democrats. They're 1,000,000 miles apart in many respects, including basic competence and willingness to listen to people.

No, it's true. It DOES fund terrorism!

[babbling]

... selling stuff DOES fund terrorism whenever the seller is a terrorist and is making a profit!

Teddy bears fund terrorism.
Books fund terrorism.
Chocolate funds terrorism.
Jewellery funds terrorism.
Cars fund terrorism.

Notice a pattern here? Business funds terrorism. If there was no money, then nothing could fund terrorism.

There is only one conclusion to draw from all this: Alberto Gonzales is a commie!

Ten years of jail time for copyright infringement?

[golodh]

Interesting excerpts from the article:

(1) "The 24-page bill is a far-reaching medley of different proposals cobbled together. One would, for instance, create a new federal crime of just trying to commit copyright infringement. Such willful attempts at piracy, even if they fail, could be punished by up to 10 years in prison."

(2) "Jessica Litman, who teaches copyright law at Wayne State University, views the DMCA expansion as more than just a minor change. "If Sony had decided to stand on its rights and either McAfee or Norton Antivirus had tried to remove the rootkit from my hard drive, we'd all be violating this expanded definition," Litman said."

(3) "copyright holders can impound "records documenting the manufacture, sale or receipt of items involved in" infringements"

(4) "boosts criminal penalties for copyright infringement originally created by the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 from five years to 10 years (and 10 years to 20 years for subsequent offenses). The NET Act targets noncommercial piracy including posting copyrighted photos, videos or news articles on a Web site if the value exceeds $1,000"

Well ... this starts to look like the laws in good old England last century. Where paupers could be sentenced to things like banishment to the Colonies (or an extensive jail time) for something like stealing an apple.

ad (1) It does seem a bit over the top punishment-wise.

ad (2) Just what we need! Congress has surely got its ear to the ground on this one.

ad (3) Makes sense ... just think of all those weblogs that ISP's are so loath to give up. Grabbing the weblogs and suing people wholesale on basis of it may yet become an important source of revenue for copyright holders.

ad (4) What are the going rates for manslaughter? And for aggravated assault? And for murder? Repeated copyright violation in excess of 1000$ is apparently the moral equivalent of murder and is rated higher than manslaughter or aggravated assault. Interesting point of view. First the War on Drugs and now this. We're going from strength to strength.

Watch the good old US of A wage War on Crime. Copyright violations are so bad for society that they merit firm jail sentences. Bad news perhaps for teenagers who use p2p software, but the good news is that this might be just what's needed to secure our lead in people jailed per 1000 (see http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries -by-highest-prison-population-rates.html) which is now only threatened by Russia and a few banana republics. We lead the world inthis area (except perhaps for countries that don't release statistics such as North Korea).

Just a thought ... those jails we have are awfully expensive per inmate. Wouldn't it be an idea to give offenders a choice: jail time or a tour of service in Afghanistan or Iraq? To err ... atone for their misdemeanour? Just a thought.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[NormalVisual]

the more favours they do when holding office, the bigger the pot they will have when the time comes to defend their seat.

Nowadays that's called "campaign contribution", but once upon a time I remember that being called "bribery".

O il

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran, a world leader in promoting terrorism, gets its funds from selling bootlegs? Research suggests not, Iran's "terror trove" comes directly and undisputedly from the selling of oil.

"Oil, quite frankly, funds terrorism" remarked a slashdotter on the condition of anonymity. "To combat this, we need tougher laws, harshly penalizing those involved in the production and distribution of oil." Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were unavailable for comment at the time of this writing.

Welcome to the War on Drugs

[hotspotbloc]

Pretty soon if you're convicted of a IP violation you'll become ineligible for federally backed student loans. Same type of war, different players.

Re:From TFA

[MindStalker]

Most likly it was actually someone in the RIAA or MPAA. The Bush administration probably approved it as well. But I doupt the president or his men sit around and think up new copyright law..

Ipod squad

[nurb432]

Just wait for a 'police force' to wander around looking for people wearing an ipod.. " against the wall " .. " prove you have licensed this content".. Then they haul your ass off to prison since you copied a song.

What the hell is this world coming too? 10 years for a song, but 6 months for raping someone..

Id say write your congressmen, but they dont care..

Regional?

[hackwrench]

Like people have that much similarity based on what region they live in anymore.

The "More Information" link points to legislation

[oDDmON oUT]

passed in 2004. PK doesn't have anything on the new bill.

Re:Skipping ads would be illigal if this were pass

[The_DoubleU]

Is the H.R. 4586 The Family Movie Act for real?
I mean, are they going to make it illegal to skip ads?

Public Knowledge.org, it is a fun site right? It is just something like The Onion, yes? Please?

"Records Impoundment"

[nurb432]

So this means that they will be able to, without a court order, go collect all the sales records from all companies that sell any sort of multimedia device? ( ipods, md players, vcrs, computers, cdroms, soundcards, cassette payer/recorders )

Then they can take those records and use them as probable cause to start searching peoples homes and shaking us all down as a society?

WTF?!

Power, not politics, is the problem

[dada21]

After reading through 350 posts twice, why has no one blamed the real problem behind laws like this?

It has nothing to do with Republicans (Democrats have always voted for anything that expands the power of government).

It has nothing to do with campaign finance (most campaign finance laws were written to either keep incumbents powerful, or limit the financial activity of 3rd parties).

It has nothing to do with protecting the artists (as copyright grew from 7 year to lifetimes, the power was offered to fewer and fewer people, leading to a cartelization of the distribution avenues).

It has nothing to do with terrorism (one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The US has killed more people with car bombs than any militant organization).

It has nothing to do with money. Money can be gained for the politician already through the massive spending bills -- just title the law in a way that the people don't read it but love the name and you can extract almost any amount of cash for your friends, family and other cronies.

It has to do with power. Congress, the Executive Branch and the Supreme Court all have taken way too much power into their hands since FDR. The slide started with Lincoln. Nothing will stop these power-mongers, no voting, no campaigns, no third parties, no phone calls. Until the individual states realize that they're weaker from promoting such a large centralizing government, nothing will change. Every third party is just a fundamentalist version of one of the two big parties, and every third party candidate that wins ends up being no different than the regular politicians.

The taste of power is enough to corrupt anyone, and there is no hope as long as we continue to let these politicians take over more and more management of a country that was better managed when states competed with one another for the best citizens.

I'm just waiting

[Talinom]

I have found nothing on Lamar Smith's webpage.

It is too new to show up on the THOMAS (Library of Congress) website. Oh, wait. It hasn't been introduced yet.

H.R. 2391 only comes up as the Safe Communities and Safe Schools Mercury Reduction Act of 2005.

That said if TFA is accurate then it will be something I oppose and will write to my state Rep about.

Re:I have an revolutionary sollution

[oDDmON oUT]

It's hardly as simple as you would make it out to be, sir.

Ever burn a mix CD for your SO?

PIRATE!

Ever record something off of internet radio or FM?

PIRATE!

Ever time shift a TV program and bypass the commercials?

PIRATE!

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

It's easy to slap on a label and criminalize some basically innocuous behavior to the benefit of those that already have all the benefits (you did know that corporations enjoy more rights and protections than you, Mr. John Q. Public, right?).

Copyright Infringement != Terrorism

[sirrobert]

I'm not a huge fan of this kind of legislation myself, but your summary is ridiculous. The claim isn't that "Copyright infringement = terrorism" or "Marijuana = terrorism" but that these are "industries" in which terrorists operate in order to fund terrorist activities. Now here's where you (yes, you at home!) can draw a Venn diagram: Make a circle and label it "Copyright Infringers." Now make another circle and label it "Terrorists." Make sure that the two circles overlap in such a way as that the CI circle has some hangng out the side, and the T circle has some hanging out the side.

Good! Now, careful analysis of this diagram will show that they aren't calling Copyright Infringement the same as Terrorism or even calling Copyright Infringers the same as Terrorists.

What it is saying is that since the "Copyright Infringement 'Industry'" has no legal checks and is "free" to operate outside the law (obviously), that it's a prime place for terrorists to work to get funding, without having to pay taxes on it (and thereby identify themselves in a traceable way) -- or if they do (laundered), not to leave a paper trail that leads back to the person himself. It's also a very-low-capital-for-fairly-high-profits business. It's the same as saying that lots of terrorists are getting into the medical profession because it is very lucrative and they can fund terrorism well with it. But if this is the case, why not crack down on it, since they are facists? Oh, because it's not illegal to be a doctor so that's just one of those "private choice" things that someone can do with their money. But copyright infringement is illegal. So they can stop some of the terrorists there (in theory).

Re:Copyright Infringement != Terrorism

[Chowderbags]

That might be good, except that most of what this is directed against is the noncommercial copyright infringer. If they targetted this bill towards those making a profit off the works through sale of the material, then maybe I could understand (except that large scale pirating operations that could help terrorists would almost certainly be done overseas...).

Congress will not reform itself

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't understand.

Congress makes the laws. Congress is made up of corrupt politicians who get their money from lobbyists (many from the drug-infested, bribery machine that Gingrich & DeLay & Ney et al. tuned on K Street -- the bribery machine was there before them, BTW -- they only tuned it to try to make the bribes all go to Republicans only). Congress is made up of corrupt career politicians who want to get reelected.

It serves their interest to punish newcomers, to encourage no turnover. So they will never want to abandon the current system of seniority that punishes newcomers and keeps power to long-term career seat holders.

It serves their interest to lock out any third party, so they will never want to change the "winner take all" non-representative electoral college.

That is to say, you cannot reform the corrupt Congress by hoping that Congress reforms it.

What should be exceedingly worrying...

[Chowderbags]

What's really worrying is the addition of asset forfeiture for the devices used in copyright violation. The forfeiture laws on the books are already overreaching and often are misused. There is little chance of ever getting anything back after it's taken, and the actual "case" is brought against the object, so you are screwed by the system. Even if you are later cleared of the charges, good luck on getting your stuff back, since different agencies can shuffle the objects back and forth to get around even the courts. I only hope the revolution comes soon after the granny who only uses her computer for email gets caught up in one of the shotgun blasts of lawsuits against random people that that RIAA loves so much.

What the heck is it about Texans?

[rnturn]

G. W. Bush, Tom DeLay, Lamar, Cornin, Gonzales... not to mention the folks from Enron ('member, Ken Lay is connected politically to these clowns) ... the list goes on. It's gotten so you have a better than even chance if you say "Lemme guess, he's a Texan, right?" whenever you hear of some lame-brained idea coming out of a politician.

Re:What the heck is it about Texans?

[Jack Schitt]

rnturn lists 6 Texas-based entities
1: G. W. Bush
2: Tom DeLay
3: Lamar
4: Cornin
5: Gonzales
6: Enron (Ken Lay)

member57 lists 5 Non-Texas-based entities
1: Robert Kennedy
2: Clinton
3: Pelosi
4: MCI Worldcom
5: TYCO

Based only on number of entities listed, rnturn has more items listed creating a valid 'better than even' situation.

Based on an average entities/state ratio, which I did not take the time to actually calculate, you'll notice that all entities listed by rnturn originate in Texas, wheras member57 lists entities which I assume are approximatly evenly distributed across the country.

Based on this analysis, rnturn's statement is valid and member57's reply, even though the number of entities listed is similar, should, nonetheless, take into account the density of entities as well as their location.

This statement was written by an unbiased, nonpartisan commentator. This statement favors rnturn's statement only on the merits of the argument and is not based on any political bias. Should anyone have reason to question the veracity, accuracy, or bias of this article, please reply to it before it is archived.

If such a law would pass...

[FellowConspirator]

The biggest victory for "content cartels" is not the bill itself, it's the title. It would mark the first time that the phrase "intellectual property" appears in a US law. It's a very important first step in realizing the transformation of copyirghts, patents, and trademarks into real property. Eventually, photocopying pages from a book really will be theft.

Is it time to give up?

[Antimatter3009]

Seriously, if this passes look where we stand. Perhaps this one bill is not the end in and of itself, but it shows the direction we're headed. We're fighting for our rights and, unfortunately, we're losing. I think our only hope is the upcoming elections. We need to vote in a Congress that is not already in the pocket of the corporations/Bush administration so that we can at least slow down what is happening. Then, in 2008, we need to vote in an executive branch that will actually fight with us. If we get another Congress and executive branch like the one we have now, I'm not sure the 2012 elections will ever happen.

In a way, I feel like I'm going way overboard here. Imagining everything in this country could fall apart so fast still seems ridiculous, but the more I see the less ridiculous it looks. Hardly a day passes without seeing something take away more of our freedom, and it just keeps coming. It's like there's no end. Maybe it's just me, but this is depressing. I've seen these restrictions pass over and over, but I've always had hope that someone will stand up against them and have at least some measure of success. That hope still exists, and there is still a chance to save this country, but it's all fading much faster than I ever thought possible.

Don't bother supporting that statement with facts

[HangingChad]

designed to give the Justice Department 'tools to combat IP crime' which which are used to 'quite frankly, fund terrorism activities,' according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Don't bother presenting any evidence to back that up, just make a broad, over-reaching statement and present it as fact. I don't believe anything that comes out of the Bush administration. The only person who lies more than Gonzales was The Lying McClellan. How did you know Scott McClellan was lying? His lips were moving.

Oxygen also supports terrorism, so why not cut down all the trees? Oh, wait...

Re:Lamar is not part of the Bush administration

[aurum42]

Did you bother to skim through the article, or even the summary? Apparently not.

The draft legislation, created by the Bush administration and backed by Rep. Lamar Smith, already enjoys the support of large copyright holders such as the Recording Industry Association of America.

re: Powerless?

[King_TJ]

I can relate to what you're saying... Thankfully, I haven't had any personal friends die in the war so far, but many people I know have gone through it.

But rather than taking an attitude of "It's hopeless!", I try to take a long-term outlook on everything. Bush can't stay in office forever, and it's becoming increasingly clear to people that the "war on terror" is mostly an excuse to pass new laws. What this means is, our next elected president is going to be a Democrat. He (she?) may not be any better at running things than the Bush administration.... but few people would really want to run for office parroting the same policies that generated one of the lowest approval poll ratings in history. So you can be assured that there will at least be a change in direction.

As a Libertarian myself, I plan on voting in that manner. Of course it isn't accomplishing much right now, but at least I'm casting a vote for what I believe in. And by the mere fact that it's still a relatively unknown platform, it prods some people to take interest. (EG. I went to the polling place for a local election a couple years ago, and when I asked for a Libertarian card - they didn't even have the right colored punch-cards readily available. My district is strongly Democrat, so I was apparently the first voter in the place who asked for that. They had to rummage around for the proper card, and it generated noticeable attention in the room. I suspect at least one of the people there got more curious about what the L.P. was all about, just from that situation.)

I've also noticed a marked increase in random people I meet who mention an interest in a 3rd. political party. Not that long ago, if you mentioned the Green Party or Libertarians, most people had no idea what you were talking about. ("Libertarians? Are they real liberal, or some version of that Socialist party?") Nowdays, quite a few people say they're at least aware of the alternatives, and usually know some friends who belong to those parties.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[masdog]

But a 5% showing for a 3rd party candidate will have an effect. Ralph Nader didn't even need those numbers nationally to get noticed by the Democratic party or the media.

The problem is that when a 3rd party candidate gets popular, one or both of the major parties will resort to keeping that candidate off the ballot by any means necessary. In the last US election, the DNC successfully went to court in several states to keep Nader off the ballot because they feared he would take more votes away from their candidate.

Comes now the "war on copying"

[Mr. Slippery]

For some years, as the rhetoric of the RIAA and MPAA grew hotter, I've been predicting a "War on Copying" similar to (and about as successful as) the "War on Drugs".

In a few years, look for guys selling copy-protection busting software on the streetcorners next to the heroin dealers.

(Hmm, but then, this could be an opportunity for code geeks to make drug-dealer cash, to live that romantic cyberpunk outlaw hacker lifestyle...)

Just once, I'd like to make a pessimistic prediction about the United States government and be wrong.

The essence of evil

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Is not a devil with horns.

It is the desire to kill freedom and subjugate all of humanity.

There was an interesting question posed on the most recent episode of Doctor Who:

Is a slave, still a slave, if he doesn't know he is one?

The answer is yes, and anyone who says otherwise has something to gain from enslaving people.

There is only one solution to the coming subjugation of the human race...

Revolution.

Re:Terrorist Funding

[lesleymac]

But you're talking about Russia, where copyrighted DVDs and CDs share shelf space with knockoff pirated media and no one cares. It's not like that happens here.

Corporate Crime vs Crimes of Humanity

[grapeape]

And we all thought that corporate run govt and law inforcement was the stuff of science fiction. Its nice to know that copying madonna's new cd is more of a crime than agravated assault. Based on current federal sentencing guidelines this will rank "copyright violation" somewhere between violent rape and child molesting. Whats the lesson to be learned in this? I guess if your just dying for the latest cd's your better off robbing a music store you will do less time.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[pclminion]

The two parties are IDENTICAL except for a couple knee-jerk issues that make good sound-bytes but have zero to do with the day to day operation of the government.

As I mentioned in another comment, I've done some very extensive data mining of the Congressional voting records over the past 15 years. The statement that the parties are practically the same is completely ludicrous. However, what is even more important than your party affiliation is who your friends in Congress are. One of the most interesting revelations of my research was that congresspeople form very well-defined cliques and voting is extremely consistent within these cliques.

Yeah, yeah, we all knew that, but it's good to see it borne out by some real statistics.

Re:And, that, folks is why this bill shouldn't be.

[JWW]

Oh, come now. The President's always been able to ask lawmakers to introduce legislation for them. That's nothing new.

Its just that this particular law is a pile of crap, no matter who wrote it.

Riiight

[Guppy06]

"The new bill is designed to give the Justice Department 'tools to combat IP crime' which which are used to 'quite frankly, fund terrorism activities,' according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales."

No, terrorism is 99.9% funded at the gas pump. For every fraction of a cent Osama might get from "IP crime" (assuming that he actually does), he gets a buck from your fill-up. Where are the laws limiting gasoline consumption to "fight terror" and "save the children?"

If Gonzales is going to make statements like this, he damned well better have the evidence to back this up. If he "knows" that "terrorists" are making money from it, then he should have an idea how much money is being made from it and how it is reflected in terror's budget overall.

Call Lamar Smith's Office Now! (Number Enclosed)

[verisof]

I just read the bill and was disgusted by what I saw. Like most of us here at Slashdot, I work in the IT field and have had way too many brushes with Homeland Security demanding data they have no right to get just because they want it. Our civil liberties are getting gobbled up and we, as Americans, are letting them do it.

So, everyone on here, PLEASE call Joseph Gibson, Lamar Smith's Chief of Staff at (202) 225-4236. Call him TODAY. He told me that NO ONE had bothered to call them regarding this bill. That I was the FIRST person who had actually talked to him about how heinous some of the provisions are in this bill. Make sure you actually read the Bill before you call so you can make your intelligent objections. Otherwise, we all come across like a bunch of people who just want to rip off IP from other people. And make sure you tell them that you are vehemently opposed to this bill and will raise public awareness about the loss of our Fair Use rights.

I spent a lot of time talking to the Mr. Gibson about the Sony Betamax ruling with regard to Fair Use rights and how Business would have missed out on the multi-billion dollar video industry if they hadn't lost that case. Also, about how creating legislation to keep a monopolistic cartel (RIAA & MPAA) in a position of power is ANTI-free market. (Businesses in a free market have to adapt to survive, I certainly know that I have to play by those rules. . . .)

Other things we can do include:

• Sending emails out to everyone we know to contact the Congressman's office. Let's flood his office with emails, phone calls & letters.
  
• Contact the news desk at your local newspapers and make sure that they are covering this item. It makes for good copy if they actually KNOW about it.
  
• Do anything you make the NON-geeks out there understand the rights they lose with this bill. How would they like it if music ripping software was illegal and they could no longer put the music from their LEGALLY PURCHASED CD's on their iPods?
  
• Also take the time to write a letter. Every one letter represents 1,000 constituents who have the same problems, but just couldn't find the time to write.

Also, please Mod this reply up to make sure that people GET THE MESSAGE. Thanks!!!

fun and games with asset forfeiture

[necrognome]

From TFA:

Creates civil asset forfeiture penalties for anything used in copyright piracy. Computers or other equipment seized must be "destroyed" or otherwise disposed of, for instance at a government auction. Criminal asset forfeiture will be done following the rules established by federal drug laws.

Now we know how the FBI will go about upgrading its outdated computer systems.

Copyright circumvention == terrorism?

[ClubStew]

So I guess all my old college classmates and that 14 year old girl RIAA sued (among many others) are all terrorists. Gosh, Gonzales is an appointed official by elected "representatives" so it must be true.

To answer someone questions about who elects these people, let me just state that we Americans don't have much choice. It's one lying idiot or another; and either way they hardly represent the majority of their constituents.

Re:And, that, folks is why this bill shouldn't be.

[plague3106]

That's not the President's job nor is he supposed to be allowed to do so.

He can draft a bill, just like anyone else can, and submit it to Congress. Voting into law, that's what he's not allowed to do.

Re:Call Lamar Smith's Office Now! (Number Enclosed

[BalanceOfJudgement]

I have emailed my congressman, reported this to the local tv news station, and am trying to find a submission page for the local newspaper.

I also sent an email to the House Judiciary Committee asking them to re-evaluate the sponsorship of this bill, considering the companies that own Lamar Smith.

That phone number is looking tempting, though.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[swillden]

Try explaining the Condorcet system to the average Joe.

I've done it several times. It's not bad at all if you explain it the right way:

Me: Each voter makes a list, favorite at the top, least favorite at the bottom. If more than half of the voters listed A higher than B, then A beats out B. Whichever candidate beats out all the others wins the election. And voters can vote their true feelings without worrying that they're throwing their vote away.

Joe: But what if nobody beats everyone else?

Me: That almost never happens, but there is a simple, sensible rule to figure out the winner even when it does. Basically, you just figure that big wins say more about what the voters want than narrow victories.

Joe: That makes sense.

Me: It's really clear if you look at a couple of examples.

Joe: Nahh, that's okay.

Actually, explaining IRV isn't significantly easier than pairwise methods.

And *everyone* can understand approval voting without any trouble at all, and it's better at strengthening third parties and reducing strategic voting than IRV.

News headlines will read....

[BobSutan]

"New legislation passed into law. Theft rates skyrocket."

"When the police asked a man caught stealing DVDs and CDs from the store, he said the risk was a bargain compared to downloading the same content online. Now he'll only get a fine, a few days in jail, and be on his merry way. If he'd used a computer to do the same thing he'd be financially ruined, spend up to a decade or so in 'pound me in the ass prison', and be marked for life as a felon. To him the choice was simple."

My point is punishments need to fit the crime. This legislation proposes punishments that are grossly excessive, as is the case for many punishments related to computer crimes that were brought forth by the content industries--I'm looking at you RIAA and MPAA. When the punishment of doing physical harm and ACTUAL theft is less risky of making a mere copy of electronic data, the world is in a sorry state of affairs, which is a symptom of the greed and corruption ruining this country.

The RedHat Connection.

[Irvu]

The SIIA's board of directors includes Symantec, Sun Microsystems, Oracle, Intuit and Red Hat.

There's your answer. Lamar Smith was bought and paid for by these people RedHat Amongst them. It is they who are to blame for this law not him, and their pressure that is to blame for Gonzalez obsessively linking this to terrorism (show me how Bin Laden benefits from pirated Britney Spears).

If we want change we have to stop screaming about Sony and then buying their products. If any company backs legislation we oppose then we have to deny them our cash. Sony is in on this but so are some of the companies above and the ones listed here. We have to do the same to companies like RedHat and Sun.

1. Call Redhat at 1-888-733-4281 or +1-919-754-3700 (outside the U.S.)
2. Tell them that this bill is an abomination that you cannot support and that if they support it they wont get your or your company's cash in the future.
3. Do the same for Sun:
   

   Sun Microsystems, Inc.
   4150 Network Circle
   Santa Clara, CA 95054
   Phone: US 1-800-555-9SUN; International 1-650-960-1300

   
   
4. And Oracle:Bullet Corporate Headquarters
   500 Oracle Parkway
   Redwood Shores, CA 94065
   Bullet Call for Directions
   650.506.7000
   Bullet International Phone
   +1.650.506.7000
   

   Bullet Corporate Headquarters
   500 Oracle Parkway
   Redwood Shores, CA 94065
   Bullet Call for Directions
   650.506.7000
   Bullet International Phone
   +1.650.506.7000

5. And so on

Lamar Smith should also be contacted, but he will just do what his corporate sponsors say so they are tones we have to target and for us as /.'rs The tech companies are our crowd.

So, this is how TCP will become mandatory

[karlandtanya]

Authorities
That computer is a hacking tool. Hacking is illegal.

Hacker
No, you're confusing "hacking" with criminal acts. "Hacking" just means that I'm using my computer in a manner not consistent with its original design to solve a problem in an imaginative manner.

Authorities
Couldn't have said it better myself.

Look, sir--some laws are just unenforcable, and we know that everybody's been breaking them for a long time. Hell, I used to, too. That's over now, but we're not locking people up for it yet. The people in the TCPA did the best they could to protect their rights and preserve as much of yours as they could tolerate. After that, legislatures simply let the technology define the rights.
The law has changed: What you're doing falls outside the scope of the TCP System. You could have bought an approved computer. The courts understand that there's really only one reason you didn't. know there's only one reason you didn't. We don't have to prove you did anything else illegal--the presence of the unlicensed computer is a crime, now.

You have a good job. A decent house that you're going to own in twelve more years, good credit, the respect of your peers, and peace of mind. You eat dinner with your kids and your wife. And what's your misery? Your kids are a couple of smart-mouth little shitheads? Great. Think about it. Don't be stupid. That's your worst problem? It's just a computer, fer chrissake. Just pay the fine; it's not going to break you.

Nothing else in the house I should know about, is there? Sign here. It says this computer you're giving me is the only illegal item in your possession. I'll sign as witness. See, it says "under penalty of perjury", and you signed it. I trust you. Look, sir, I'm trying to help you out here. You seem to be a decent guy and folks like you really don't belong in jail. I'll be in the neighborhood following up in about a week--you can ask me any questions then. County dump's public property, by the way. Can't say what came from who or when in there. Yeah--next Saturday. We'll be doing this side of the street in the afternoon.

One more thing--After I leave, I go to Best Buy or Wal-Mart and get yourself a legal computer, register it, and start using it. Use the number on the bottom of the form.

No, seriously. Go buy a decent computer. You're going to need one, and it's not going to put your Visa over the limit. Look, your hard drives get yanked & scanned into the database. Whatever you were using your computer for before---if don't start doing it on a licensed computer, the court assumes--Yeah, you got it.

Terrified hacker
Sorry. Here's the computer. Where do I sign? Can I pay the fine with Visa? No, I don't mind a 3% fee; that's what--only another fifteen bucks?

Three Years Later...

The fully engaged citizen act: Federally mandated taxpayer subsidized minimum internet access for everyone. Partially or fully subsidized (check your tax return to see if you qualify) computers for everyone. They're not very powerful, but they're enough to vote, file your taxes, and pay your fines.

And we really, really expect you to take advantage of this program. Why wouldn't you? It's basically free, and the only way you can vote, renew your drivers' license, apply for an apartment, sign up for electric service. Give all that up? Why? No, seriously, why? Sure, you can opt out of the program, but we'd really like to know why. I'll wait until you get it filled out. Can we go inside an sit down?

No, you misunderstand the word. Privacy is what's violated when the neighbors peek at your daughter in the shower.
A pattern of secretive behaviour, on the other hand, is evidence of a crime. No, of course, not you. You've done nothing wrong at all.
No, you don't qualify for the subsidy. But, hey, lemme see what I can do. Just sign up today, and I'll see you get the latest model--it'll