Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
How could statutory damages ever be insufficient when the copyright owner has the option of proving actual damages?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
IANAL, but IMHO, and it may be soon to tell, given current circumstances, but notwithstanding alternate outcomes, that I have absolutely no idea how to respond to your question. But look at the silly monkey!
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
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.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Last time I checked the burden of proof was on the prosecution. They may have fixed that recently, so I could be wrong.
Passwords, pass phrases and keys are, for better or worse, considered to be protected by the 5th amendment.
Unless law enforcement or the copyright holder can crack the security on it, there is no way that they can compel a person to hand over the files at this point.
How we know is more important than what we know.
http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9834495-38.html
So yes, case law does back it up.
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
"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."
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
No, he's informed. What's your excuse?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
"The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the right against self-incrimination applies whether the witness is in Federal or state court (see Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964)), and whether the proceeding itself is criminal or civil (see McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924))."
And more specifically,
http://www.sorrelsudashen.com/papers/Fifth_Amendment_Right_Against_Self_Incrimination_in_Civil_Cases.pdf (pdf)
McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924) Privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment "applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it."
If copyright violation didn't have a criminal component to it, you might be right. But it does, particularly since the DMCA specifically criminalized copyright violations of digital material.
The sad thing is, that 1% of the population is already in jail. The highest incarceration rate in the world. But we think were safer. Do you think a 10-fold increase in people in jail will lead to an overhaul of the system, or just become a nice way to ensure lots of jobs as Prison Guards for the local economies?
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
We the People keep reelecting them. Blame California, North Carolina, and Utah. (and blame Canada)
--Obyron
1% of adults, not of the general population. Not that it affect your point.
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.