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."

25 of 533 comments (clear)

  1. Remember! by WPIDalamar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Remember! by cliffski · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why is it specifically in favour of 'Big' media companies? What is it that prevents this also helping out small media companies, and even individuals who create copyrighted works?
      It seems that anti-copyright campaigners would much rather portray every copyright owner as being like Madonna, prince or Metallica, rich and arrogant, rather than the reality, which is that the vast majority of copyright holders by number are very small or one-man companies.
      if you are an average-wage magazine column writer, copyright law helps protect you from being ripped off. If you are an author, musician or other content creator, the copyright law also helps protect you. the fact that the law also protects some big clueless, evil bastards that none of us like does not mean we should throw out the law. Laws against violence also protect politicians and business people that we hate, that doesn't mean the whole idea of those laws is bad too.

      Copyright law needs to be clarified and reformed. But it also needs to be enforced. Writing to your elected representative is the correct way to achieve sensible laws. Breaking the law so you can watch spiderman 3 for free proves their point, not yours.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    2. Re:Remember! by Jaysyn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You know what happens with every single new government entity? They feel the need to justify their existence. 3 guesses how these guys would try to accomplish that. We already have laws for these things. Enforcement on a digital system *is not possible* with out invading our privacy or crippling our hardware.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    3. Re:Remember! by Sen.NullProcPntr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why is it specifically in favour of 'Big' media companies? Because, currently (in the US), an individuals copyright is good for life plus 70 years! (Sounds more like a prison sentence than something good;-) For a corporation the copyright is for either 120 or 95 years.
      How does having a work protected by the government for years after the creator has passed on benefit anyone other than a corporation that is feeding off the works of others?

      if you are an average-wage magazine column writer, copyright law helps protect you from being ripped off. If you are an author, musician or other content creator, the copyright law also helps protect you. the fact that the law also protects some big clueless, evil bastards that none of us like does not mean we should throw out the law. Only a few nuts are suggesting we should totally repeal or ignore the copyright laws.

      Writing to your elected representative is the correct way to achieve sensible laws. Yes, and we need a lot of letters to counteract the bags of $$ that 'Big' media companies are providing to said elected representatives. Copyright laws may protect the little guy but the little guy is not the one that is demanding that the government get involved in stepped up enforcement.
    4. Re:Remember! by m2943 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why is it specifically in favour of 'Big' media companies?

      Because big media companies get to write it.

      What is it that prevents this also helping out small media companies, and even individuals who create copyrighted works?

      As one of those people, I can tell you that it does not help me.

      Copyright law needs to be clarified and reformed.

      Copyright should not be clarified and reformed, it should be taken back to its original design: about 20 years protection, required explicit registration, and no protection on content that has DRM applied to it. That's what copyright is.

      The bullshit that passes as "coypright law" today is legalized extortion.

    5. Re:Remember! by raddan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Big media companies are the only ones who have the resources to police their works. Do you think the FBI would even notice if people started illegally distributing my software? Even if I made a stink about it, claimed that this was 'millions of dollars of loss' to me, do you think they would care? Now what if Disney does the same thing? The FBI listens to Disney.

      Sure, I agree, copyright is a good thing. But what we have now is insane. Copyright lasts for the lifetime of the author, plus 70 years. That's essentially in perpetuity, because the public that is alive today, and likely their children and even grandchildren, will never see those works enter the public domain. I can buy an argument that works should remain copyrighted for the lifetime of the author (although I personally do not believe it should be this way), but an additional seventy years? Who does this benefit? Let's see... something that never dies... er, not vampires... Highlander? Oh, right! A big media company!

      I don't argue for people making an honest living. But when you've got the government pulling Gestapo shit for the big hitters, that's not honest. That's fascist.

  2. Just more evidence by GoMMiX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That our government is owned by corporations. What a surprise.

  3. WTF by tritonman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:WTF by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OMG this is (*&#$% scary, the last thing we need is another above-the-law government organization

      "the last thing we need is another government organization"

      There, fixed that for you.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:WTF by Technician · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pffft. Lots of luck with government enforcement, especially when just about everyone is doing it. Don't they get it?

      For those who think "I don't copy copyrighted material so I'm immune" should think again.

      Have you ever right clicked on a webpage and picked "Save Photo As..."??

      Congratulations you have committed a copyright violation unless the owner explicitly gave permission. This goes beyond simply making available on P-P. If you have copyrighted stuff on your computer without the copyright owners permission, you are in violation.

      Finding infringers is as simple as finding computers.

      Just where did your desktop art come from? Saved any photos from a news story? NASA photo? Clipped any text? The top part of my post is directly cut and pasted from another author. I didn't ask permission. Is it fair use?

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    3. Re:WTF by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You've just only come to the realization that copyright laws are by definition internally inconsistent and illogical?

      This is because the whole notions of copyright and information as "private property" are at odds with the nature of information itself, which lacks the necessary attributes to be "private property".

      And so convoluted, idiotic "laws" are made by greedy, deluded people to try to make the impossible happen. Exceptions upon self-contradictions upon stupidity.

      The idea is akin to trying to make gravity illegal, followed by elaborate sets of rules about which objects you are alowed to lift and how high you feet are supposed to go when walking, all in the effort to maintain a silly illusion which pads someone's pockets.

      There is also a side-effect, desirable by some powermongers, and that is the fact that such "laws" make everyone a criminal, subject to whim of "interpretation" by governmental agencies and politically appointed "justice" departaments. Such as the one the GP mentioned. Pictures in the cache of your web browser are definitely copies (amongst many other stages of processing in your computer) and are identical to pictures you saved yourself, differing only (possibly) in the location where they were saved. Yet the latter is, by definition, a copyright violation, while the first one is one of those, arbitrary, whimsical, "exceptions". "Yes, the gravity does not exist and to prove it you should maintain a state of floatation at least 17 inches off the ground! With the exception of 'Joy periods' whereby you are allowed to kick the planet Earth, but no more frequently then once a second!"

      The sooner you realize that information, including thoughts in your head and large integer numbers, unlike physical objects does not fit the primitive, animalistic desire of some to fence it off and sit on it growling "Mine! All Mine! Back off!" with spittle flying, the better.

  4. blackmail by midnighttoadstool · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:In Soviet Socialist States of America by Negatyfus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Am I the only one that thinks the USIPER acronym eerily sounds like "usurper?" That's exactly what this is starting to look like.

  6. WTO Membership by nurb432 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 ----
  7. Cool. Another War by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  8. These guys are not living in the modern world by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:These guys are not living in the modern world by imsabbel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You STILL think to narrow.
      And your argument is a bit of a strawman.

      The real point is: Money in = Money out, in the long term.
      We have a many-multi billion video games market. We have the rise of cell-phones/ringtones/ect, which suck enormous amounts of spare income out of the 15-23 target group. All that money obviously is missing somewhere else.

      People might spend less money on music because of the internet, not because they download it instead, but the fact that those 50$ cable/dsl/flatrate fee are just missing somewhere else.

      And nowadays, a lot of people find better things to do with their time in the web/blogosphere/ect than fullfilling their old role as mindless media consumers.

      And ultimately, people who have money to spend are time-limited (as opposed to the typical teenagers that have tons of time, but not the money, and create "no loss" piracy. Or do you think that timmy would have bought those 3500 albums and 700 games he downloaded from piratbay?

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  9. If this is actually implemented.. by Fizzl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  10. We have money for this ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Don't you realize.... by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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. ;-)

  12. Re:No naming of Congress Critters? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I agree, but you know, if I truly believed Congress was simply uninformed on these important issues, but still had the best of intentions (road to Hell being paved with them notwithstanding) I might be more understanding. Fact is, these bastards (and bitch) know exactly what they're doing, know perfectly well that they're wronger than wrong ... but are going ahead with it anyway! That's when they cross the line from being clueless to actually evil.

    This law is being bought and paid for by big media, like so many other "IP friendly" laws already on the books, meaning that once again we've been sold out by our elected leaders. There are countries where such corporate influence (read: corruption) is illegal, and is considered the treason that it is. It's high time time we start thinking of lobbying and (ahem!) "campaign contributions" in exactly the same way. Feel like peddling your influence to pass a law that goes directly against the best interests of the American people? Hope you can do the time. That's how it should be.

    This is just sickening. I have the feeling we're not that far from Joe Public taking serious notice of this, because if the Feds start breaking down doors looking for bootleg videos there's gonna be Hell to pay. The media outfits are just drunk with power ... they got their copyright extensions, they got the DMCA ... now they want the Feds to start cracking heads on their behalf? They are going to push this too far, because they don't seem able to stop, able to accept any limits on what they should be allowed to do. They should be happy with what they have: this is going to explode and the backlash is not going to be pretty. The Federal Government is really pushing a lot of the American people's buttons lately. Something is going to have to give.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  13. Re:"It costs $X billion per year" by langelgjm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    TRANSLATION: A movie is "shit" only when you have to pay for it. Otherwise it's a justified use of bandwidth (downloading it), storage (burn it to media), and maybe even time (watching it).

    It's called elasticity. When the price rises above a negligible amount, a lot of people will no longer consume this particular good. As for the "costs" you mention: A) people are already paying for bandwidth - it doesn't cost them anything extra to download a movie as opposed to letting their connection sit idle; B) burn it to media? who does that?; C) we're posting on /. - clearly our time isn't that valuable :-)

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  14. Re:A valid question by Un1v4c · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  15. How is this more of a deterrent? by Jtheletter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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. --
  16. Not Satisfied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.