Slashdot Mirror
Congress Creates Copyright Cops
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Not satisfied with pitiful potential penalties of $150,000 for infringing upon a $0.99 song, Congress is proposing new copyright cops in the "'PRO IP' Act of 2007, specifically the creation of the Office of the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative (USIPER). They also feel that the authorities need the authority to seize any computers used for infringement and to send copyright cops abroad to help other countries enforce US laws. MPAA boss Dan Glickman praised the bill saying that, 'films left costs foreign and domestic distributors, retailers and others $18 billion a year,' though Ars points out that it allegedly costs the studios only $6 billion."
I'd like to point out that Ben Franklin said we should have a revolution every few years just so we could weed out these helpful sort of Congress/Senate criminals legislating to line their pockets.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Actually, UN is only a loss of sovereignty for nations that do not have veto power on the security council. I know you were kidding, but I just had a 3 hour debate on this yesterday with a friend. So the ideas are clear in my mind. Sovereignty is not lost unless the overseeing administrative unit has enforcement power that the (more) local administrative unit cannot legally stop. The only enforcement power that UN has is Article 7 security council resolutions. They are the ones whose violation authorizes enforcement (as in use of weapons) by member nations. Since US has veto power over all security council resolutions, US sovereignty is not lost to the UN. But all the nations outside of the 5 permanent members have lost their sovereignty.
A better example of loss of sovereignty is probably NATO. Because the NATO supreme commander (as far as I understand -- don't quote me on it) has the power to order actions by armies of member nations.
If we were to ever enter into an international treaty that gave some overseeing administrative unit a clear power to veto our laws and was combined with an alliance that gave some supreme commander unequivocal power to order our FBI or military around, then we would (pretty much by definition) lose sovereignty. As it stands, we may still have the power to say "No" to a decision of any international organization that we've joined.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
H.R.4279
Not to mention that other countries tend to have laws and Constitutions and claims of sovreignity over their land and inhabitants.
Just a little advance reading could spare a us a whole lot of floundering and discussion.
This and this idea of copyright cops will not end well.
"Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
What you really want to know is the status of the bill. This one has just been introduced and passed to the Judiciary Committee, from the looks of it. But here's a helpful link to the list of cosponsors of the bill.
If you are represented by any of these people in Congress, you have a special duty to write and explain how poorly-represented you are.
I think a better example of something that causes lost sovereignty is some of the trade agreements such as NAFTA. One example I think of specifically is the dispute between Ethyl Corporation and Canada, in which Canada was basically forced to remove a ban on a fuel additive despite evidence of it being harmful to humans, and to pay to Ethyl corporation 13 million dollars in legal fees and lost profits. (I am aware that the link I gave is quite biased, but I just wanted to point out the result of the legal battle I am speaking of). Further down, the article reads "... Canada remains one of the few countries in the world where MMT is blended into automotive fuel.". If that is not an example of lost sovereignty, I don't know what is.