Slashdot Mirror


Copy That Floppy, Lose Your Computer

Over the weekend we posted a story about a new copyright bill that creates a new govt. agency in charge of copyright enforcement. Kevin Way writes "In particular, the bill grants this new agency the right to seize any computer or network hardware used to "facilitate" a copyright crime and auction it off. You would not need to be found guilty at trial to face this penalty. You may want to read a justification of it, and criticism presented by Declan McCullagh and Public Knowledge." Lots of good followup there on a really crazy development.

24 of 766 comments (clear)

  1. A new AGENCY?! by Azuma+Hazuki · · Score: 5, Insightful

    An entire new agency in charge of stopping copyright violations. Wonderful. I am SO glad to know our government has its priorities straight.

    --
    ~Eien no Inori wo Sasagete~ Searching for my Hatsumi...
    1. Re:A new AGENCY?! by jeffasselin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The government is by the people for the people. At least in theory.

      But the politicians are those who enact laws, and although they are in theory elected by the people, such elections are only possible thanks to the big money corporations give them. So, yes, those politicians have their priorities very straight: helping those that give them the money they need to keep their jobs.

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    2. Re:A new AGENCY?! by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Makes sense. After all, this is about protecting the only market the US still has the upper hand and that generates more revenue internationally than it costs.

      Take a look at the industry sectors. Agriculture? Heaps more imports than exports. Industry? Which? Production is outsourced to China. Service? Great, but you can only export a service when someone comes to you and consumes it, and leisure travel to the US isn't really too appealing with the rather xenophobic approach since 9/11.

      So what's left is content and patents. News, entertainment, rights. To create an entire agency to protect what's left of the US commerce is quite logic.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:A new AGENCY?! by Znork · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "After all, this is about protecting the only market the US still has the upper hand and that generates more revenue internationally than it costs."

      Mmm, no. Tricking _other_ countries into recognizing intellectual monopoly rights generates more revenue. Implementing more monopoly rights yourself merely makes your country less competetive, and strengthens the rights of _other countries_ to exact revenue from _you_.

      "So what's left is content and patents."

      Yeah, well, guess who's gonna own the monopoly rights of that content and those patents? Lets just say that the growing economies arent so dim they havent realized they too can get monopoly rights in the US.

      Realize this: Intellectual 'property' is, and always has been, a covert distributed taxation scheme.

      Saying enforcing IP 'protects jobs' is no different than saying 'raising and enforcing taxes protects jobs'. Give someone the right to exact taxes from some part of the economy and there's no limit to how large expenses they can create and how many workers they can employ. That does not equal competetive and efficient free market economy.

  2. So let me get this straight... by john_is_war · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If someone on my schools network downloads an illegal mp3, then the RIAA has the right to confiscate and sell every single router, switch, and hub between the two people... clogging the tubes is bad enough, but taking them away and stealing them?

    --
    Live life to the fullest. It's not that life is short, but that you are dead for so long.
    1. Re:So let me get this straight... by jamstar7 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Look at the (shudder) bright side.

      With everybody's computer taken and sold, there is now going to be a booming market in new computers, all preloaded with Vista. What a windfall this shall be for the computer manufacturers and Microsoft.

      How do you prove you've never downloaded anything off the internet? You can't. Doesn't matter if you have legal copies of the CDs you've ripped down to MP3 and stored on your computer, even if you have the reciepts for them, how do you prove you didn't just download them instead of ripping them from CD?

      And the theory that absence of evidence doesn't mean absense of crime is rather disturbing to me.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    2. Re:So let me get this straight... by egomaniac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I bought a retail copy of MS Office. I'm looking at the CD right now. Unfortunately, somehow the case (on which the CD key was printed) disappeared, probably because of my two-year-old son's love of placing expensive things in trash cans when nobody's looking. I needed to reinstall it, but couldn't find the case and thus didn't have a valid CD key.

      So that leaves me with a dilemma. I know I bought and paid for the thing. I've got the stupid CD. But I couldn't find a key online which would work for this particular copy (as with all Microsoft products, there are umpteen million variations, and a key from one variant won't work with any others). So I downloaded a torrent of the same Office version (but obviously a slightly different edition of it).

      Technically, I broke the law. I could be thrown in jail and have all of my stuff confiscated for my horrible, evil copyright infringement. But... did I actually do anything wrong? I submit that I did not. When the law makes "not doing anything wrong" not only illegal, but assigns extremely harsh penalties which could destroy my life, we as a nation have collectively lost our minds. I could have stolen a physical copy from a store and faced much less serious penalties, and THAT crime actually would have harmed the store owner. My "crime" harmed no one and was not even unethical (in my opinion), and I risk jail time, massive fines, and confiscation of all my stuff. Thanks, politicians!

      --
      ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
  3. Based on other laws coming out in the USA by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Based on other laws coming out in the USA in the last 8 years this isn't so bad. It just means you should do your copying on the latest most expensive machine in the local shop, report them then pick it up at auction for buttons.

  4. Re:Shot down for all the wrong reasons... by stretch0611 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "I predict that many Republicans will oppose this bill, ... but, becuase the industry that they would be tasked to protect is one that generally opposses them."

    You forget the one thing that all politicians value most: The almighty dollar. Once the lobbyists start handing out "campaign donations" you will see every idiot believing in the wisdom of the RIAA/MPAA.

    Of course my right to backup copies will be ignored because I do not even have the money to get my representative to blink. I only get lip service from him every two years near election time.

    --
    Looking for a job?
    Want your resume written professionally?
    DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
  5. Republicans passed the Bono Act and the DMCA by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I predict that many Republicans will oppose this bill, not because they are opposed to the idea of protecting an industry legislatively, but, becuase the industry that they would be tasked to protect is one that generally opposses them. If the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 and Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 primarily benefited an anti-Republican entertainment industry, why did the majority of Republicans vote for them?
  6. Hate your boss? Hate your company? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Download some MP3s at work. In comes the MAFIAA, seizes all computers and your company goes down the loo. Whether the company has anything to do with it is irrelevant. Guilty 'til proven innocent. Well, even if proven innocent, the hardware is gone and won't come back.

    Is that how I should imagine this?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. Re:So? by enjerth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nobody challenged it when "drug dealers" were deprived of their money and belongings, without due process.

    This is just the next chapter.

  8. Littering by Tetsujin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    one example would be a man who was handed a £60 fine for littering when he threw a used match stick out of his car window. That is harsh... But why did he throw it out his car window? Isn't that what the ashtray is for? (Drivers in the US never seem to bother using their ashtrays. Burning cigarettes dangle out the window, and then are cast aside when they're finished. It's like, what the hell, people? Why do you think that's OK?)
    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  9. Re:funny how... by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really, is it just my perception or has the number of stuff that was made a law only to be killed by the courts as unconstitutional skyrocketed? I really wonder, why that is.

    Don't know if there's a trend, but it does happen a lot. I believe reason is for election grandstanding. Come the following election, some Congressman can say he's tough on X while his opponent's soft, where X=[crime, guns, drugs, violent games, porn, sex offenders, copyright, gay rights, etc]. This works well for both campaign ads as well as soliciting contributions from companies who take an interest in these matters. It doesn't matter if the courts kill the law; the poor guy still tried and it's not his fault those Commies on the bench ruined everything. Or so he says.

    Similarly, that's also where you'll see the 417-3 votes, where somebody will sponsor a bill against killing kittens, with a line item here or there including funding for pork projects. Nobody can vote against your amendment without voting for killing kittens. And the three people who do vote against it will have fun come re-election time, when the opponent saturates TV with commercials that state how much the guy enjoys killing kittens.

  10. Re:This is great! by crossmr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm all for revoking America's access to the internet...
    could you imagine what a world it would be if the MPAA and RIAA and other special interest groups couldn't get online? Not saying there aren't groups like this in other countries, but they're not nearly as vocal or as damaging.

  11. Re:So? by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Due process is out the window since the War on Drugs. And some folks challenged it, but the difference was, no one "liked" the drug dealers... when Grandma loses her computer to the government... people might start taking the 4th amendment seriously. But I doubt the sheeple will notice. Such is life after soma.

    At least they had a warrant (such that it was...) when they stole the drug dealers' property. Now they don't even need that to grab your stuff.

    scared yet?

    --
    It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
  12. Similar to drug seizure laws by penguin_dance · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the same crap as the drug seizure laws. Everyone thought--great, take the houses, cars, property of the drug dealers. However, what's ended up happening is people are having their cars seized because a friend had a small amount of pot. Worse yet people are having large amounts of cash seized with the attitude that you must prove yourself innocent. It doesn't matter that no drugs were found or any evidence of drug dealing, just the fact that you're carrying a large amount of cash is considered a crime. And good luck getting it back!

    Friends, our freedoms are being eroded away while we stand by. According to the Supreme Court, municipalities can grab your land under imminent domain to sell to Wal-Mart or someone building condos. Police can seize your cash for no reason other than you're carrying it and now they want the right to seize you computers on the claim that you might have illegally downloaded something. It's got to stop or this really will be a police state.

    --
    If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
  13. Re:Bad URL by LordKaT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Please actually perform the function of editors and edit the story. It'll save us the time of correcting your mistakes in the comments section.

  14. Re:funny how... by nerdonamotorcycle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Indeed. I really wish there were some procedural way to penalize legislators who pass blatantly unconstitutional legislation. As you say, there's a tendency on the part of Congress to pass this sort of crap to make it look like Someone Is Doing Something and let the courts sort it out later. The problem is, SCOTUS doesn't get a case until someone's directly adversely affected by the law. That "someone" also has to be a good test case. (Sympathetic-appearing defendant, facts clearly on the defendant's side, law clearly open to misinterpretation/misapplication, etc.) Meanwhile there will be a lot of other "someones" out there who get screwed over who don't have the resources to pursue things through the courts to that level and/or whose cases are a lot more ambiguous.

  15. Re:So? by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The 4th amendment to the US constitution, that authority that describes the limits of federal law, emphasis mine:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    I'm having a lot of trouble reading this in any way at all that can justify trial- and conviction-free seizure and disposal of a citizen's property.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  16. Re:This may be your last chance... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > leave the US while you can. Serious.

    And where would you go that isn't any worse?

    Is that your solution to life's problems? Run away from them?

  17. Re:So? by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Marijuana doesn't lead to harder drugs, marijuana LAWS lea[d]s potsmokers to harder drugs.

    Bingo. When a kid buys pot,he has to basically seek it through underground channels. The same channels that also traffic Meth, Crack, Heroine, etc. When you start going to various dealers you quickly realize that you're knee deep in the drug underworld, and you can ask for pretty much any drug you want and you will get it.

    If you just had to flash an ID showing you're 18 or 21 or whatever to the guy behind the counter, you'd be all set. I would prefer that gas stations and grocery stores not sell marijuana. but perhaps Head shops could apply for a license the same way as a restaurant applies for a liquor license, and can be turned down under the same criteria. If the state, county or township doesn't want it there, then they can ban it. And let adjacent regions pull in the tax revenue instead. This is how alcohol sales works right now, where dry counties lose sales as people just pick up their beer at stores over the border.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  18. Re:So? by Malevolyn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...any computer or network hardware used to "facilitate" a copyright crime and auction it off. So this includes entire ISPs and root DNS servers?
    --
    Your ad here.
  19. (In good humor, honest!) by Dasher42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is that your solution to life's problems? Run away from them?

    I see you're no Einstein.