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 $6 billion."
GOP was in charge of Congress, /. we all saw their name-party plastered in the article splash. Congress is now in Democrat control and suddenly, no Name-Party is being posted on the article splash. Wuz up with dat? /sigh
Dammy
Remember to write your congressmen.
Both in opposition to this bill and to state you general feelings that copyright law has become too broad and too far in favor of big media companies.
Do it now, email is good, paper is better.
That our government is owned by corporations. What a surprise.
OMG this is (*&#$% scary, the last thing we need is another above-the-law government organization. We've already seen that the CIA is now above the law with their news of destroying evidence of torture that they previously said did not exist.
With such disproportiate laws, particularly of seizure, innocent US citizens are now wide open to black-mail.
A determined enemy only has to have a few minutes access to your computer, download a few songs and then report you.
What you fucking imbeciles don't realize is that the people pirating your movies WOULD NOT PAY FOR THEM OTHERWISE (mostly because they're shit, but that's really beside the point here). But no, dickbeats like Glickman parade their made up and meaningless numbers in front of the largest congregation of dickbeats on the face of the earth (hello, US Congress!), they have a big circle jerk, and come up with some abominable brainchild of a bill like this one. Sigh. If the terrorists haven't won already, they probably deserve to. They don't even have to take our freedom, we're just selling it off a piece at a time.
Am I the only one that thinks the USIPER acronym eerily sounds like "usurper?" That's exactly what this is starting to look like.
Very.
What if more than 50% of the people illegally download music, shouldn't the law then be repealedThat argument hasn't seemed to work very well for marijuana legalization so I kind of doubt it's going to work here :(
Whatever happened to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?I don't know if I buy downloading music off the net for free as essential to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". I definitely think the punishments for doing so are way out of line with the severity of the crime though. And "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" went out the window when the Government decided it could tell me what I can and can not put into my body. It went out the window when the Government decided to try and regulate what we can do in the privacy of our own bedrooms. It went out the window when the Government decided to compel people to register for selective service at 18 but deny them the right to legally purchase alcohol until 21.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
If you are a member of the trade union, the ip cops will come and shove it up yours, as being a separate sovereign nation wont mean diddly.
Man this is scary. Just the very idea of federal government running around to arrest people on a CIVIL issue where the burden of proof is ( basically ) reversed is frightening and completely contray to the constitution. WTF ?!?!
---- Booth was a patriot ----
First we had the WAR ON DRUGS
Then we had the WAR ON TERROR
Now we have the WAR ON COPYING
Funded by the taxpayer of course.
Deleted
Please, stand by for questioning.
In destroying one, two or 10 of them, we are doing the work of millions. That's why our hand must not tremble, why we must march across the corpses of the enemy toward the good of the people. -- Joseph Stalin
Because remember that "Goals (if noble) justify the means".Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
It also almost rhymes with "Lucifer."
This is my signature. soid st egr.hyTa rsiugm usnin Any questions?
I did but U-SPIER also fits
I don't even see how having that will even help their sales...
Their problem is that they're still living in a society where we had:
- No Internet.
- No home cinema systems.
- No media centers.
Many today don't even want to go to the cinemas because they think it's noisy and with annoying people in front of them, or even people telling about the events in the movie or constantly laughing at bad places. Or maybe they just want to easily go to the bathroom when they wish during a LOTR-like movie marathon. So then they pirate stuff instead of just twiddling their thumbs with a useless 50" home cinema system until the artificially delayed DVD/Blu-ray/HD-DVD release is made, usually also with artifically imposed regional restrictions.
I mean, there's a whole new field of technology at play here that completely seem to pass them. They still seem to think we are sitting on: a mix of cassette, vinyl, and CD players, and on CRT TV sets. That's what their business model is still geared for. And people today barely even own these relics anymore. They use the media in totally different ways than before.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
If this is ever actually implemented, I would taunt the motherfuckers to try and come "seize" me and whatever infringing media machine I might be using. At some point a man has to say "enough" and defend himself with violence from absurd laws.
Bot Assisted Blogging
Lets' see.....
There's no money for fixing schools. My property taxes have gone way up due to the fact the Current Administration is cutting school aid nationwide. Lucky for my kids we are in a rich area so the parents can still pay.
We are pissing away cubic dollars in Iraq on a scheme to keep Iraqi oil off the market, protect OPEC, and keep prices high.
But, we can set up an entire law enforcement apparatus to protect the richest industry on the planet ? Oops, almost forgot, that industry also owns the media outlets (thank you FCC for allowing mass ownership of media) which the wankers rely upon to be re elected.
Corporate America has gotten just about every Christmas Present it wanted under the Bush Administration. The Bankruptcy Bill was the first shot. Next, continue to subsidize Oil and Gas companies. Make sure that all worker protections, or public protection, is de-fanged, or given to the person who used to lobby against it. Flat top mountains in West Virginia. Allow utilities to continue to build 1950's era generation plants.
Meanwhile, block stem cell research, push "abstinence", and raise the prices of contraception for poor women while making abortion less available.
Bush was honest, once, when he stood before a gathering of huge corporate benefactors, and said "Some call you the elite...I call you my base".
Next up....roadside execution for speeding.
If this is ever actually implemented, I would taunt the motherfuckers to try and come "seize" me and whatever infringing media machine I might be using. At some point a man has to say "enough" and defend himself with violence from absurd laws.
;-)
That this post is a terrorist threat. Now they won't even have to pretend to treat you fairly.
I state they should be pouring their money into cooperative international assistance on catching paedophiles, mas murderers etc, not this glamorised hollywood bullshit, why do we never hear about big investments and new bills pushing REAL issues the tax paying public actually WANT dealing with.
What's that you say? oh yeah, no fat corporate pig scared shitless it's on it's last legs is footing major bills to pay for improvments to REAL law and order.
I had a hard parsing Glickman's quote until I realized what he probably meant was "film theft costs
Well if you pick a date, just let me know. I'll need to schedule some vacation time at work, and then I need to find a babysitter for the kids.
I've got American Idol scheduled on the DVR, so maybe we'll have a viewing party after we're done usurping the government.
I gave myself to Jesus, but now he never calls
Ayn Rand once wrote, "It's difficult to rule a society of honest men. So if there aren't enough criminals, we will simply write more laws."
Is this a law that is meant to stop you from downloading music or is it meant to be broken so that the people whom it "protects" can have some power over you?
Currently we have seen that the costs for sharing only a handful of MP3s can be as much as a quarter million dollars or more after legal fees. How does anyone think that increasing fines to a half million and including jail time will be any more of a deterrent? Financial ruin was already nearly guaranteed if one was caught, if that isn't enough to scare the thousands (millions?) of file sharers then it is unlikely this will. We might also see a blow-back effect similar to when penalties for violent crimes are raised to maximum levels. e.g. if one gets life in prison for rape or murder then it induces some rapists to kill their victims since the sentence is the same and killing the victim might make it less likely to be caught. The parallel would be if you're going to be financially wiped out and sent to prison for sharing ONE song, why not simply share hundreds? You're screwed either way.
Also this brings copyright infringement from a civil tort to a criminal charge. Change of venue to courts already overburdened by America's various other "War on $CONCEPT". And why should this be a criminal offense? The system was already out of balance in favor of the copyright holder, this law would make it egregiously so. If Congress is willing to reduce copyright limits to *reasonable* lengths then maybe it would make sense, but as it stands now almost nothing created in my parent's lifetime will become public domain for me before I die. Copyright is supposed to offer limited protection in return for the work passing to public domain. If it essentially never enters public domain then why should it be protected by criminal penalties? It's like shooting someone for shoplifting, completely out of scope with both the crime and the supposed bargain between the public and copyright holders.
Also in regards to some posts saying that this law protects all equally and is not skewed in favor of large corporations, I must disagree. Large corporations could afford a judgment against them brought successfully by an individual, it would not go so well the other way around. The inherent imbalance between the resources (financial, legal and manpower) of a corporation and an individual pretty much guarantee an individual will be forced to cut a deal or risk their livelihood and freedom while a corporation could stall for years and even if convicted would be able to recover almost instantly.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
Nancy Pelosi: can't do a damn thing she promised to the voters, but can deliver for the MAFIAA.
Ain't it ironic that the Dems in congress are now saying the US has to leave Iraq because the Iraqi government can't get its act together and get something done?
Not satisfied with pitiful potential penalties of $150,000
The reason they are not satisfied has nothing to do with a perception of how extreme the punishments should be. The reason they are not satisfied is very simple:
It's not working.
The complete collection of laws, technologies, and enforcement agencies that presently exist are failing to stop the widespread practice of copyright infringement. Given that the industry controllers are stuck in the past, they are doing the only thing they know how to do: pass even more laws, make even more enforcement agencies, and make the punishments even worse.
As much as we would like to see the dinosaurs roll over and die...they don't want to. They will struggle for life, and have no qualms about causing as much waste, suffering and injustice as they can in the process.
To the RIAA/MPAA: The new world is here. You can't bring the past back. Your attempts at forcing your values on to your clients cannot succeed. All you are doing is harming yourselves and everyone else. You will continue to experience nothing but failure until you embrace the world and harmonize with the technologies that exist and the ways in which your clients want to use them. That is all.
Individual states cannot secede. That was ultimately the point of the Civil War. The slavery issue was a smokescreen; the real issue was that the national government would not allow the states that formed the Confederacy to remove themselves from the Union.
Which of course violates the premise of our government. I think that was the first major sign we were in trouble (of course allowing slavery was also wrong). If a free people can choose to form a government to protect their rights, surely they are free to disolve it?
More broadly, the entire idea of state sovereignty (i.e. enumerated powers) has been emasculated. The federal government has the powers it says it has. In the good old days, they used to use the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify Federal intervention in matters Constitutionally delegated to the states; now, they rarely even bother.
I think that largely happened when the Sentate become elected instead of appointed by State legislatures. I think its time we reverse that, and we may see states start reigning in the federal goverment.
The south, champion of States' Rights, was 'zerged FTW' by the North, who after getting the snot beaten out of it for three years, kept importing all the Irishmen and other foreigners they could, and put them under the command of a man who realized the confederate armies were the objective, not the cities.
I'm not so sure about this interpretation of history. The way I remember it, the North's army was initially commanded by a complete moron (McClellan?) who had no idea how to command an army in battle, and unsurprisingly lost many battles until he was finally replaced. General Grant was a far better commander, who won the war for the North. However, it wasn't just imported soldiers that made the difference: the North was far more industrialized than the South, which had a totally agricultural economy. Industrialization is very important when you're trying to conduct a large-scale war, as that's what builds your guns, cannons, trains, etc. In the end of the War, the South was shooting rocks out of their cannons, because they didn't have any cannonballs left.
I think the South was ultimately doomed to lose the war for exactly this reason; they didn't have the economic and industrial capacity to carry it out, and their economy was in trouble anyway. The only way they could have kept it going would have been to engage in terrorist tactics like we see today (like in Northern Ireland, Iraq, etc.), rather than having uniformed troops fighting on battlefields, which is a losing proposition when you're a weaker force.
However, the decision by the North to fight the war was definitely the wrong one, IMO. Just as the States voluntarily entered the Union, they should have the right to voluntarily leave the Union. It doesn't matter what the economic impact or whatever will be: it's their choice, for better or worse. The slavery issue was definitely a smokescreen; while slavery is certainly wrong, it was already headed for extinction, as most other developed countries at the time had banned it, and with the South's economy already headed for the toilet, and popular opinion turning away from slavery, slavery was on its last legs anyway. If the North had just allowed the Southern states to secede, their economies would have collapsed before long; they probably would have asked to rejoin the union at a later time, and we probably wouldn't see such an overbearing and bloated Federal government now.
... as intellectual property (IP).
An idea, thought, or piece of information cannot be "property". If it isn't tangible, it isn't property.
To demonstrate, tell me something about yourself. How about first name and place of birth?
OK, got it. Thanks Wally from Walla Walla.
I now have some new IP.
Hey Wally, have you forgotten your name or place of birth? No. Of course you haven't.
Therein lies the problem with IP. It can be freely copied and is limitless in supply. You can't maintain a marketplace or sustain an economy without the basic principle of supply vs. demand, at least not one we're familar with. Throw out every economics book you've ever read. These artifical restrictions on supply are a joke. You think China or the 3rd world gives a damn about our IP, copyright, trademark, or patent laws?
Will Firefly's "Chinglish" be good enough to communicate with our new landlords?
You're deeply confused, actually. FOSS is essentially libertarian, a partial restoration of a free market in some information (computer programs) by legal ju-jitsu.
Copyright monopolies derive straight from marxist labour-theory-of-value thinking: "Things are worth the work put into them. We must reward the artists for their work. Those poor starving artists, who could never prosper in a free market undistorted by copyright monopoly". They are thus arch-socialist inventions, and despite the propaganda term "intellectual property", designed to suggest capitalism, are nearly as far as one can get from the ideals of real free-market capitalism (see: Hayek) as one can get.
Some people are also confused by some surface similarity with regard to the "free sharing" aspect of FOSS. But that's very different to the communist "to each according to their needs, from each according to their ability" - in the FOSS case (a) it's a simple recognition that the good in question (a copy of some information) is just plain too cheap to charge for, once shorn of the artificial scarcity of copyright monopolies. Unlike communism, you're not _obliged_ to distribute FOSS if you don't want to. You can just use it (with the possible exception of the contentious GPLv3). GPLv2 and most other "considered FOSS" licenses only kick in on distribution.
And (b) remember, there "is no from" anyway! - if I give you a copy, I can retain my copy anyway. I don't lose anything by giving you a copy. Fundamentally different to the state seizing and redistributing crops I've grown - if the state does that, I lose those crops...
We should stop pandering to the copyright supporters. It's demonstrably not the case that they're the only people capable of creating or who currently create stuff (a fallacy I commonly see amongst both artists and pharma corps - they seem to think that just because they won't work without monopoly grants, no-one would, and that if they stop creating, nothing will be created. Demonstrably, empirically falsified many times over. But such arrogance and vanity is common among them.)