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.

30 of 766 comments (clear)

  1. Re:So? by ShawnCplus · · Score: 5, Informative

    You would not need to be found guilty at trial to face this penalty. That bypasses the "Do the crime" bit since they haven't proven you've actually done the crime.
    --
    Excuse me while I gather the virgin sacrifice and assemble the pentagram required to solve your problem
  2. With added 80s music! by PlatyPaul · · Score: 5, Funny

    In case you missed the message, Don't Copy That Floppy!

    (warning: may cause eye strain and/or brain damage)

    --
    Misery loves company. Online misery loves unsuspecting random strangers.
  3. This is great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Since the intarweb is used to facilitate copyright infringement, the gov't can seize the entire series of tubes!

  4. 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.

  5. EFF Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
  6. 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 CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'd like to seem them try to take the router from the local ISP. That could cause some major problems. Or the DNS root server that facilitated the copyright infringement. Legislation like this shows that the lawmakers have absolutely no clue how the internet works.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  7. Re:Bad URL by PlatyPaul · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    Misery loves company. Online misery loves unsuspecting random strangers.
  8. How is this wrong? Let me count the ways... by beef+curtains · · Score: 5, Informative

    Amendment V

    No person...shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    I understand here that "due process of law" is actually being changed to make this legal, but I feel that the following serves to define "due process of law" in a way:

    Amendment VII

    In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

    --
    Just once I'd like someone to call me 'Sir' without adding 'You're making a scene.'
  9. This may be your last chance... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 5, Interesting

    leave the US while you can. Serious.

    Well, let's see what happens in the next elections. If the people lose, you're welcome to establish here below the Bravo :)

  10. 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.

  11. Re:So? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Nothing new here. Civil forfeiture has been a feature of the War on Drugs for a long time; extending it to the War on Copying is an obvious strategy. The "great" thing about civil forfeiture is that the defendant isn't you, with all of your rights; in a twisted bit of legal sophistry, it's the property itself being sued by the government.

    I'm sure it will be just as successful in stopping copying as it was in stopping drug use. (I'm just waiting for the violent black market in bootleg DVDs to develop.)

    "History repeats itself: First as tragedy, then as farce." - Marx got that one right at least.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  12. A visit from the spelling police by Tetsujin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Even more so: since you do not have to be found guilty, I think that would very clearly be an unconstitutional Government "Taking" denial of Due Process. It's one thing to ask if corporate lobbiests... Let's take a moment to check your spelling...

    Hm... Lobby, lobbier, lobbiest...

    OK, it all checks out... You can go about your business. Move along.
    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  13. Re:How is this wrong? Let me count the ways... by mothlos · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Look at civil forfeiture law in the US. The government can sue your property and is given the ability to seize and sell your property based on a mere probable cause that the property was used for criminal purposes.

    http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/looting-of-america.html

  14. Poppycock! Balderdash! by Stanislav_J · · Score: 5, Funny

    Are you suggesting that here, in the Land of the Free(TM), that the government would seize and auction off your assets for a copyright "crime" even if you haven't been adjudicated as guilty? Oh, come on.....next you'll try to tell me that they'll seize and auction your car and keep your cash if they even suspect you of having drugs! (Chuckle) Yeah....like that's gonna happen....

    --
    "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
  15. Re:How is this wrong? Let me count the ways... by wattrlz · · Score: 5, Informative

    In addition: Amendment IV 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.

  16. 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.

  17. Re:Bad URL by jamie · · Score: 5, Informative

    Please tag a story 'typo' when you see this. It'll alert us admins to a problem and it'll get fixed in probably less time than it takes to write a comment about it...

  18. 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.

  19. Re:So? by sm62704 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    So what? If they search your car and find drugs they can keep pthe car, even if your case doen't go to trial. You lost that right long ago in their war on some drugs. The US has become a police state.

    ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Except after your 4th amendment rights aren't violated when they search your car and they find a little baggie of pot under the back seat. They take the car! No trial, nothing. Even if you go to trial on the drug charge and are found not guilty, they still keep the car.

    A few years ago the newspapers reported that there was a soldier who was pulled over for driving a used car while black in some little redneck state down south. They searched the car and found cocaine in the door panels. He was arrested and his car confiscated. It turned out that he had bought the car three weeks earlier, and the cocaine came with the car. Nobody knew how it got there. The soldier was released without any charges being filed- but he never got the car back.

    So much for that part of the 5th amendment.

    They're not "undercover cops" or "plainclothes policemen". Call a spade a spade - they're God damned Secret Police, no different than the Communist KGB or the Nazi's Secret Police. If "crimes" like drug possession, gambling, and prostitution weren't crimes there would be no reason or excuse to have Secret Police.

    So now you have a "crime" that's a civil matter and you forfeit property without compensation or trial. Thank you, "Partnership for a Drug Free America". I hope your God damned children become needle junkies you fucking assholes, because drug laws make their becoming junkiest MORE likely. Marijuana doesn't lead to harder drugs, marijuana LAWS leas potsmokers to harder drugs.

    How far does this slippery slope slide? I love my country, I hate its government. Perhaps one day my descendants will again have a representative government, rather than the one party plutocracy it has become.

    -mcgrew
    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  20. 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.
  21. Re:Makes sense on some levels by GeckoX · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Er, big difference. If you aren't found guilty, you get your boat and other confiscated things back.

    This specifically entails skipping the due process involved. Basically, they can write you a spurious ticket and take your hardware...and never give it back, irregardless of whether you're guilty or not.

    This crap really has to stop. Someone has to draw a line. No, actually, the whole country needs to draw a line, and demand that everything that has already crossed that line be revoked. Things in the US are starting to cross over into the land of the surreal. Jumped the shark is an understatement, and I KNOW that this is not the kind of thing your average American citizen wants to see happen.

    --
    No Comment.
  22. Re:Littering by networkBoy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't (any more). I pitched a cigarette out the window once. Gog popped for littering (rightly) and attempted arson (WTF?). I was in the middle of an urban jungle with no sign of plant life for at least a mile in any direction. When I went to court I pled not guilty to the arson charge and "guilty with an apology your honor" to the littering charge. The judge asked "what" and I replied that though I had done it, if I had any idea about the cost and hassle of what I had done you could believe I'd not have done it and would certainly never do it again. Fortunately she believed me on that count and thus I only paid $360 for the littering ($100 * court fees). As to the arson charge she asked me why I believed I was not guilty, requiring an explanation of the complete lack of vegetation, and similar lack of intent, along with the reasonable belief that my smoldering smoke would be extinguished by the *rain* that was falling at the time. Found not guilty.
    -nB

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  23. 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!
  24. 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.
  25. Re:So? by GooberToo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Due process is out the window since the War on Drugs.

    I'm sure a lot of people have no idea what you're talking about. This started because state police in many states were empowered to seize property, without due process, and *pocket* the proceeds. This created an environment where almost every state cop in the US, where this was implemented, was actually a criminal. Several states, after a decade or more of complaints, finally started to investigate.

    It seems it worked like this. Cop sees nice expensive car. Cop pulls over the car. Cop claims you are a drug deal and plants evidence. Cop seizes you car and everything in it. You are arrested. Drug charges were often dropped. You car and all your property within the car is sold at auction. Cop pockets all of the proceeds. Normally out of state cars were the preferred targets, leave you little recourse. And in the end, who wants to champion "drug dealers." States only started to act when it was found that the majority of the "drug dealers" fit a certain profile such as "affluent retirees" passing through the state.

    States such as GA, LA, MS, and AL were especially bad. The solution was to tell the police to stop it. They couldn't simply arrest all of the criminal cops because in those four states, as much as 90% of the state police would be behind bars. It was thought that created too much of a risk to public safety to put criminals in jail.

    So chances are, if you've been ticketed by a state policeman in these states, you were ticketed by a criminal that has commit more crimes than most any criminal currently convicted, sitting in jail right now.

  26. 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.