Controversial Section of PRO-IP Act Cut

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Rep. Berman (D-CA) has removed the controversial section 104 from his PRO-IP Act. That section would have multiplied the already excessive statutory damages for infringement in the case of compilations, making the damages for infringing upon the copyrights of a single average CD rise into the millions of dollars. This change came after proponents of the amendment were unable to cite even one case where the statutory damages recovered were insufficient. But don't let the article fool you into thinking that the PRO-IP Act is no longer controversial now that this one section is gone, the act still creates copyright cops who are authorized to seize people's computers."

Comments

Good example.

[palegray.net]

This is a good example of the fact that both major parties play these games with our civil liberties. As much time as people spend bashing the Republican party over privacy invasion and big business backroom deals, it's good to remember that the Democrats play the same games every day. Perception is a funny thing.

How could statutory damages ever be insufficient?

[John Hasler]

How could statutory damages ever be insufficient when the copyright owner has the option of proving actual damages?

Just the latest in a long list of malfeasance ...

[ScrewMaster]

Berman should be forcibly removed from office for the things he's already done. They can take Howard Coble and Orrin Hatch along with him. We the People have no use for them.

WalMart

[Anonymous Coward]

making the damages for infringing upon the copyrights of a single average CD rise into the millions of dollars. ...and yet, if you just physically steal one, no one cares near as much. Whatever floats their boat, I guess.

Re:WalMart

[bky1701]

Of course. Physical theft hurts businesses, especially small ones. On the other hand, piracy threatens the control of the media giants. Who do you think has more lobbying power?

I remember

[hyades1]

"Yes, Billy, it's true. The United States wasn't always a fascist dictatorship. Actually, the proper term is oligarchy, but I won't bore you with all that stuff now. Anyway, there was a time when the people in office actually cared, some more than others, about the ideals that made it a good place to live. And, no, there was no invasion. Our people just gave it all away, a little at a time, by always voting for politicians who promised to make the country a safe place for children and kittens. It's safe now, Billy...just as long as you do exactly as you're told."

Re:I remember

[Omestes]

Our people just gave it all away, a little at a time, by always voting for politicians who promised to make the country a safe place for children and kittens

I know I'm replying to your rather flippant remark with something serious, but why are we doing this? The other democracies in the world seem to have veered in a more liberal direction (liberal, not by the American definition). What makes the Americans MORE susceptible to welcoming a tyranny with open arms? I would have thought it the opposite, being one of the most violently individualistic countries on earth.

The average American, it seems, is the epitomy of sheep, anti-education, anti-freedom, and pro-tyranny, and not just our tyranny, but the tyranny of everyone else too. How did this happen, for a large part our founding fathers were ideal freethinkers (minus Adams), and liberals (again in the non-modern American sense), but somehow we've turned into the modern Soviets. This confuses the hell out of me.

How the hell did Europe (and Canada) beat us at our own, original, game?

How did France, Canada, the Nether

Re:Just the latest in a long list of malfeasance .

[Obyron]

We the People keep reelecting them. Blame California, North Carolina, and Utah. (and blame Canada)

This should be alarming

[sltd]

They're beginning to make compromises. With this controversial section removed, it's just that much closer to becoming a law, which is bad for everyone.