Slashdot Mirror


PRO-IP Act Passes Judiciary Committee

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The Pro-IP Act has passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously, thanks to the support of committee chairman Rep. John Conyers (D-MI). We've discussed this before — it's the same bill which would create copyright cops with the power to seize computers, when powers like that have been systematically abused in other areas. But, apparently, they think the bill is just wonderful now, simply because they cut the provision that would've increased statutory damages while keeping the rest. This is the same bill that William Patry called the 'most outrageously gluttonous IP bill ever introduced in the US.'" While we're on the subject of intellectual property, Canadian law professor Michael Geist gave a talk on Monday about "copyright myths."

185 comments

  1. I'm sure this won't get abused by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean the secret police worked out well for Nazi Germany right?

    --
    "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    1. Re:I'm sure this won't get abused by CSMatt · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Wow. Godwin's Law invoked in the first post.

    2. Re:I'm sure this won't get abused by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      Could have gone with Soviet Russia, but did you really want those floodgates opened up?

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    3. Re:I'm sure this won't get abused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Referencing nazis or the holocaust doesn't end intelligent discourse. Morons spouting "Godwin's Law" as if that's some sort of rebuttal do.

    4. Re:I'm sure this won't get abused by LaskoVortex · · Score: 1

      Morons spouting "Godwin's Law"

      LaskoVortex's Law : The number of posts Goodwin's law is referenced after a reference to Hitler is approximately 1.

      Beware Goodwin's law referencers: I'll be referencing LaskoVortex's law at every opportuinity.

      --
      Just callin' it like I see it.
  2. The copyright cops have to follow due process and by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 0

    The copyright cops have to follow due process and you have the right to a jury tail.

  3. I think I speak for everyone here by PitaBred · · Score: 1

    I think I speak for everyone here when I say...

    "Awwwww, fuck."

  4. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

    you have the right to a jury tail. A jury tail actually isn't that bad if you cook it right
    --
    "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
  5. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just like in the war on drugs and the war on terror, right?

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  6. Its just a matter of time by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Before we have a bill like this passed and then a bunch of 'ip cops' running around ripping ipods out of your children's hands, and following you home after buying a pack of recordable CDs to search your home.

    Either will legally become "probable cause" and justification of an instant warrantless search/seizure/detainment.

    Freedom and privacy is screwed and our founding fathers are spinning in their grave.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Its just a matter of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many of our forefathers in the US kept heading west for freedom. We have pretty much ran out of "west" and for that matter many of the west coast laws are some of the most absurd in the country and the ability to just walk away and become a mountain man or backwoodsman is ever decreasing as well as having laws passed against it. Access to the stars and other livable planets are not yet attainable and as science fiction combined with human history has shown us, even then the empire shall follow. So we either find a way to deal with this or hasten our fall.

    2. Re:Its just a matter of time by lgw · · Score: 1

      Either will legally become "probable cause" and justification of an instant warrantless search/seizure/detainment. The cops stopped needing that quite some time ago. Seems DWI checkpoints were more important to the voters than the 4th Amendment. Then cam the War and Drugs, and then the War on Terror, and now there's not much that calls for a warrant any more.
      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:Its just a matter of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, what? You consider taking a breathalyzer test to be an unreasonable search? Or do the cops in the US do weird things with their drunk driver policing?

    4. Re:Its just a matter of time by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      I they are stopping you for it...

    5. Re:Its just a matter of time by earthforce_1 · · Score: 1

      1. Put copy of kid's book report HarryPotter.txt on P2P server
      2. Wait for DMCA notice
      3. Immediately call cops to raid the offices of Media Sentry because they have clearly downloaded YOUR copyright work.

      --
      My rights don't need management.
    6. Re:Its just a matter of time by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Or require a permit and license to purchase CD/DVD media. And as a condition of the license, you agree to allow warrantless search of your property at any time.

      Don't think this could happen?? Well, here's an existing precedent: this is EXACTLY what you agree to if you have a kennel permit (notably in most California jurisdictions, but also in some other states) -- the terms of the permit state that your property can be searched at any time, for any or NO reason, WITHOUT A WARRANT.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    7. Re:Its just a matter of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I ran West to freedom - in Sweden! (Via Australia and Thailand.)

    8. Re:Its just a matter of time by Grym · · Score: 1

      Wait, what? You consider taking a breathalyzer test to be an unreasonable search? Or do the cops in the US do weird things with their drunk driver policing?

      It sounds unreasonable, right? I mean, who could possibly be against checkpoints and, by extension, approve of drunk-driving? It sounds ridiculous--that's the point.

      And yet, personally, just a few years ago, I dutifully stopped at at a Virginia DWI checkpoint thinking that since I was sober I had nothing to fear. And then I got ticketed for improper tinting on my windows. The guy in front of me? Something was wrong with his exhaust. During the 10 minutes I was pulled over, there must have been at least 5 other people pulled over like me and none of them were getting arrested, just ticketed for minor violations. It was complete bullshit, and (foolishly) I let the officer know as much. They weren't trying to catch drunk drivers. They were using the DWI checkpoint as an innocent-person traffic stop.

      -Grym

    9. Re:Its just a matter of time by Shagg · · Score: 1

      If Media Sentry downloads your kids book report from your server, it's not copyright infringement. Distributing your own content is not illegal, it'd be kind of silly if it were.

      --
      Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
    10. Re:Its just a matter of time by lgw · · Score: 1

      You consider taking a breathalyzer test to be an unreasonable search? At a DWI checkpoint, all drivers are stopped and checked. Stopping/searching someone without specific evidence that that specific person committed a specific crime is specifically what the 4th amendment was trying to stop. Holding everyone in an area and searching them all is *exactly* what the 4th outlaws. And yet we do it every day at airports. Before the TSA it was just the private sector, but now it's the government searching everyon in an area without any specific evidence that any specific individual committed any specific crime -- I guess "terrorist" is one more root password to the US Constitution. :(
      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    11. Re:Its just a matter of time by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

      egads Grym, you mean you are pro-constitution? I may have to rethink this friend-friend thing we have here on slashdot ;)

      Sera

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    12. Re:Its just a matter of time by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      if its random and without cause, yes. You should be under legit suspicion first.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    13. Re:Its just a matter of time by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      There are other 'permits/licenses' that also give the state that right and usurp your rights.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    14. Re:Its just a matter of time by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Indeed, the entire permit/license concept has largely become corrupted -- it is no longer "you are certified competent/legally allowed to"; it is now a laundry list of ways that the gov't can restrict your rights, or coerce you into compliance if you wish to retain (some portion of) said rights. :(

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  7. Re:moderation? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Nope, its just you.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  8. Re:moderation? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

    I saw one 3:Funny over in the Fossett search article.

    I guess the modpoint well done gone and ran dry.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  9. In the words of G. Gordon Liddy (post prison) by Unlikely_Hero · · Score: 4, Informative

    When a fed comes to your door, I have three words for you. Headshots headshots headshots. They wear armored vests and helmets so aim for the eyes. (paraphrased)

    --
    Happiness does not come from having much, but from being attached to little.
    1. Re:In the words of G. Gordon Liddy (post prison) by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      Most of will agree with you but they'll be too afraid to mod you up. Sad.

    2. Re:In the words of G. Gordon Liddy (post prison) by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because eeeeeverybody here agrees to cop killings over some dispute about copyright violations. Now I don't know what'd happen if I got on your bad side, but I think you're one of those that make me very much pro gun control laws...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:In the words of G. Gordon Liddy (post prison) by lgw · · Score: 1

      Ahh, but he Liddy issued a public retraction a few days later, something like "I'm sorry I asked my listeners to shoot the feds in the face ... the groin is a better target". Nothing I could possibly add to *that* comment.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:In the words of G. Gordon Liddy (post prison) by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      Because gun control laws have proven so effective in reducing crime, right?

      Come on guy, give me a fucking break. All those laws do is make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain life-preservers to use to protect themselves against the people who just ignored the gun laws.

    5. Re:In the words of G. Gordon Liddy (post prison) by frdmfghtr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most of will agree with you but they'll be too afraid to mod you up. Sad.
      That's because there is no "agree/disagree" moderation option. If you agree or disagree you respond to the post.
      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    6. Re:In the words of G. Gordon Liddy (post prison) by Unlikely_Hero · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh the cop killing routine. Fed != Cop. "Cop Killing" brings up the image of a posterboy neighborhood cop getting shot by some asshole who was drunk driving. Law enforcement from the federal government is a great deal different than local or even state. What's the big difference? Feds can make you disappear. No trial, no "due process". They can quasi-legally make you disappear (see black sites in Hungary, etc). Dispute about copyright violation is different from someone coming into my home, violating my personal sovereignty and taking my belongings because I'm acting against the wishes of a cartel. I'm honestly not a violent person, but when assaulted in any way I consider it to be my human right to defend myself from aggressors unless I aggressed upon them and if the aggression was not violent I would ask that they come discuss it with me rather than a show of force. Anyone who can't stay out of other people's business unless they're coercing them should be considered a threat to your life.

      --
      Happiness does not come from having much, but from being attached to little.
    7. Re:In the words of G. Gordon Liddy (post prison) by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was half-joking. I don't own a gun and don't plan to own one, but if some enforcer wants to seize my gadgets just because of the music on them then I fully support the beating, maiming, and bukkake'ing of them. Just not shooting them in the head, because that would be savage.

    8. Re:In the words of G. Gordon Liddy (post prison) by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1

      Amen my brother, Amen.

      (this is in reference to the Amen Break, an extremely over used piece of audio that the originators were never paid for, nor were they granted copyright)

      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
    9. Re:In the words of G. Gordon Liddy (post prison) by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 1

      Heh. I have six words for you: BOOM! Headshot!!! BOOM! Headshot!!! BOOM! Headshot!!!

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    10. Re:In the words of G. Gordon Liddy (post prison) by mrscott · · Score: 1

      THAT would be an interesting altercation. Smack! Punch! Jab! Cut! "Ok... now hold on while I round up a bunch of guys to help me finish this fight!"

    11. Re:In the words of G. Gordon Liddy (post prison) by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because eeeeeverybody here agrees to cop killings over some dispute about copyright violations.
      When enough pigs will be killed because they're stupid enough for enforcing silly laws, one day will come that only the smarter cops will be left, and hell will freeze over when they'll start enforcing them...

      Don't believe me? Something very similar just occured in Australia: hundreds of police officers in South Australia were caught with pirated movies on their computers, but they will not be prosecuted because "the ability to effectively police the state will be severely diminished".

      (Article here, many others).

    12. Re:In the words of G. Gordon Liddy (post prison) by nbucking · · Score: 1

      Two to the chest one to head!

    13. Re:In the words of G. Gordon Liddy (post prison) by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      It's not a dispute over copyright violations. It's a dispute over civil rights. If I recall correctly, there was a war faught on this continent over the same kind of thing. I think it's referred to as the American Revolution, or something silly like that.

    14. Re:In the words of G. Gordon Liddy (post prison) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spin it however you like. You are still justifying murder. With an attitude like that you are no better than "them". Try to use your brain, not that primitive, reactive monster you keep hidden beneath the surface.

    15. Re:In the words of G. Gordon Liddy (post prison) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liddy is an idiot, and obviously knows nothing about shooting or body armor.

  10. All IP is equal by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

    but some IP is more equal than other IP.

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  11. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by Unlikely_Hero · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, have you been paying attention recently? That's how things are supposed to be. If things were how they were supposed to be according to the constitution 99% of this bullshit wouldn't even be getting heard by congress.

    --
    Happiness does not come from having much, but from being attached to little.
  12. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by gnosi · · Score: 1

    Since when do any cops have to follow due process

    --
    There is only one truth -- There is no Sig.

  13. Re:moderation? by calebt3 · · Score: 1

    Actually, I have the same problem (although the modifiers are working)

  14. I'm both saddened and glad by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

    I'm saddened that Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) doesn't represent my district so I can't try to get him recalled. At the same time, I'm glad I didn't elect him to office.

    As for the bill, there is nothing to be glad for there.

    --
    GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  15. Waste of my tax dollars. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Copyright infringement is a civil offence, its the responsibly of the owner to enforce their copyright, why then are people trying to create a federal division to enforce it?

    Police forces already have enough problems with funding and manpower trying to stop real criminals, you know, robbers, murderers, arsonist, thieves and druglords. People who are actually a threat to society.

    If i saw one of these copyright cops set up in my area, I think I'd wait 'till a real crime hit the news, like say a kidnapping. Then I'd sue them for wasting my tax dollars, I'd stand my happy ass up in front of a jury and ask why my tax dollars are being used to protect some corporations profit margin instead of searching for that missing little girl.

    And I'd stack the fuck out of that jury, I'd do my damnedest to insure everyone on that jury was a parent, and I'd dare the defending lawyer to explain why the profit margin on the latest pop album is more important than finding a missing child.

    And then I'd push my state legislature to outlaw these 'copyright cops'.

    1. Re:Waste of my tax dollars. by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Informative

      Copyright infringement is a civil offence, its the responsibly of the owner to enforce their copyright, why then are people trying to create a federal division to enforce it?

      Because that's how you gain power. By making criminals of your subjects, you gain power over them - the power to threaten them with fines, imprisonment, or death. How can your government control you if you've broken no law? It can't -- at least, not reliably -- so it makes up laws that are impossible to follow or interpret, and in so doing, forces us to jump through its hoops to avoid imprisonment. It doesn't matter whether they catch all the "criminals", only that they catch enough to make examples of. Eventually, you find yourself complying, if for no other reason than that you're afraid that someday you might be picked as the "example".

      "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens' What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

      - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957

      And for those who automatically reject everything Rand wrote (because they don't like some of what Rand wrote), how about a former Attorney General and US Supreme Court Justice?

      "With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him." - Robert H. Jackson, 1940

      And then I'd push my state legislature to outlaw these 'copyright cops'.

      And then your Federal overlords would threaten to withhold highway funding, and your state legislature would cave.

    2. Re:Waste of my tax dollars. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually none of this will occur. Most people will just whine in their blog when the Senate makes a similar bill, both bills get merged, the President signs it, and our tax dollars will be used to guard the profits of the record labels, so they can keep selling Britney Spears records.

      It will be just like laws about speeding and drug charges. People will whine how packed our prisons are getting, and point to the numerous abuses of the law (as the law gets upheld again and again in courts with the simple argument by the plaintiff/prosecutor that the law is "merely a clarification of existing law", but that is it. The law will remain on the books for the foreseeable future because it is another source of revenue. What city, county, or other municipal district would not love a law allowing them to seize stuff and sell it for profit?

      Look at the DMCA, and how it is repeatedly upheld in US courts.

      Want to do something now before the Kopyright Kops knock on your door? Donate to the EFF, write to your Congress people with a valid reason, something other than "wah, I want my warez or mp3z", and make it known NOW during election year that if any Congress-peeps who look at this law will not get your, or anyone you can pursuade's vote, regardless of party. This is not a law that people understand enough to protest against, but what would help keep this from seeing the light of day are press snippets of people against this law with reasonable reasons why.

      The only good thing is that we can run the clock out on this law, and force this back to square one, if enough people actually would do something other than perhaps post a whine on a public forum.

    3. Re:Waste of my tax dollars. by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1

      Look at the DMCA, and how it is repeatedly upheld in US courts. Please cite a single criminal case to which this statement applies.

      You can't, it has never happened.

      Copyright infringement is a civil matter, not a criminal offense.
      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
    4. Re:Waste of my tax dollars. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Let me ask you something - if everyone is guilty of something, how do government officials stay in the office? Either they can be found just as guilty of something, and then everyone's on the same footing - and Ayn Rand falls flat on her face. Or they are exempt from laws that affect the regular plebeians, and then the issue is with a complete lack of government control and rule of law - and Ayn Rand falls flat on her face. Either the problem she mentions doesn't exist, or there's a far more significant problem at hand.

      And if we're looking not at an abstract concept, but at the reality of government, that idea falls even more apart. Yes, there is a reality that there are currently far more laws than necessary on the books. To attribute that to farsightedness and a long-term power grab is to attribute qualities to politicians that I have barely ever seen.

      I find this quote to be one of her more ridiculous assertions. It baffles me why it keeps being trotted out.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    5. Re:Waste of my tax dollars. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Somehow I find Jackson's statement by far the more chilling of the two. Thanks for the cite.

      Oh, fixed link, I hope: http://roberthjackson.org/

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    6. Re:Waste of my tax dollars. by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Either they can be found just as guilty of something, and then everyone's on the same footing - and Ayn Rand falls flat on her face. Or they are exempt from laws that affect the regular plebeians

      What are you, stupid? They're not exempt from the laws; they're exempt from the enforcement. In other words, they decide who gets investigated, so they simply decide that it won't be them!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:Waste of my tax dollars. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2, Informative

      Let me ask you something - if everyone is guilty of something, how do government officials stay in the office? Either they can be found just as guilty of something, and then everyone's on the same footing - and Ayn Rand falls flat on her face. Or they are exempt from laws that affect the regular plebeians
      ...
      They are exempted, as it is the case in Australia: hundreds of police officers in South Australia were caught with pirated movies on their computers, but they will not be prosecuted because "the ability to effectively police the state will be severely diminished".

      (Article here, many others).

    8. Re:Waste of my tax dollars. by Unlikely_Hero · · Score: 1

      It's the same thing as other bosses of criminal gangs (and don't kid yourself that the democrats/republicans aren't criminal gangs). 1) they never expect to get caught because they're calling the shots and are on the offensive 2) they think they're a lot smarter than they are so they never anticipate getting caught at all 3) Yes, they can be found just as guilty of something and everyone should be on the same footing. However, the legal system is intertwined with the politicians. Do you bite the hand that feeds you? Only if you have a very good chance of winning, so the occasional politician that screwed up his corruption attempt gets caught and the rest essentially remark "heh...moron, I'm glad I'm never going to get caught"

      --
      Happiness does not come from having much, but from being attached to little.
    9. Re:Waste of my tax dollars. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're an idiot.

      it's not the guilt it's the ability to arbitrarily enforce the guilt.

      pass a law against breathing air but give police discretion as
      to when to enforce it and you've achieved the perfect police state.

    10. Re:Waste of my tax dollars. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      A) Who is they? I was talking about lawmakers - do you think they decide who gets investigated? I thought that was the domain of law enforcement.
      B) What's the difference between being exempt from a law and being exempt from the enforcement? Sounds like it's very much the same.

      Not sure what you got your panties all up in a bunch about.... sounds to me like what you're describing is indeed a situation where a segment of the population is above the law - and as I said, that to me is far more dangerous than a situation where everyone is a criminal. That's because that means that there is effectively no rule of law, just arbitrary application of power by those who are in power.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    11. Re:Waste of my tax dollars. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      That's just insane. I hadn't heard about that. Note to self: avoid Australia as much as possible.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    12. Re:Waste of my tax dollars. by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      They are exempted, as it is the case in Australia: hundreds of police officers in South Australia were caught with pirated movies on their computers, but they will not be prosecuted because "the ability to effectively police the state will be severely diminished". Your quote is deceptive, at best (at worst, it's downright disingenuous). It was torrentfreak that wrote that, if the law were enforced literally, "the ability to effectively . . . . ", not the prosecutors or anyone else involved in the decision not to prosecute -- hence my strenuous objection to linked the two phrases with 'because' when there is absolutely no causal relationship.

      The fact of the matter is, they weren't charged because that's what the prosecutor decided to do. That's how the Anglo-Saxon system of laws works and, although it is far from ideal (and I don't think anyone defending it claims it is), I'm quite certain that you don't want to live in a society where the prosecutor must bring every allegation to trial. Someone must make a decision as to what charges are serious enough (and the evidence strong enough) to take to trial. If it's not the prosecutors, then it will be the police that refer charges to the prosecutor to file (assuming she has no discretion).

      No one would doubt, for instance, the right of a civil litigant to withdraw his case if he feels that pursuing the case is not in his best interest. The prosecutor fulfills the exact same role except that she represents the State in the proceedings and is expected to act according to the State's best interest. If you don't approve of her decisions, you are perfectly free to elect a new government.

      Here's the cliff's notes version of prosecutorial discretion: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/CliffsReviewTopic/Prosecutorial-Discretion.topicArticleId-10065,articleId-10015.html
    13. Re:Waste of my tax dollars. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      The fact of the matter is, they weren't charged because that's what the prosecutor decided to do. That's how the Anglo-Saxon system of laws works and, although it is far from ideal (and I don't think anyone defending it claims it is), I'm quite certain that you don't want to live in a society where the prosecutor must bring every allegation to trial.
      The thing is, how much the fact that it was police officers helped not having them charged?

      This is the kind of hypocrite double-standard law system the anglo-saxons are so fond of that gives such a corrupt reputation to anglo-saxon countries.

    14. Re:Waste of my tax dollars. by BrianGKUAC · · Score: 1

      But you forget the power of numbers. The moment government looks wrong enough to everyone is the moment government is gone. As long as people can be made to look like bad guys to the rest of the general public, the rest of the general public doesn't DO anything about the laws that make everyone a criminal. Thus, the very position of power which makes those lawmakers above the law is maintained by the public and the laws that make everyone a criminal.

      Never underestimate the stupidity and laziness of society as a whole.

      --
      Menus: Linux=function, Windows=vendor, OS X=as little as possible. Makes a statement, don't you think?
    15. Re:Waste of my tax dollars. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      A) Who is they? I was talking about lawmakers - do you think they decide who gets investigated? I thought that was the domain of law enforcement.

      Well, you thought wrong: it's supposed to be the domain of law enforcement, but in reality the politicians, judges, and prosecutors have a "good ol' boys network" and look out for each other.

      What's the difference between being exempt from a law and being exempt from the enforcement? Sounds like it's very much the same.

      Exactly. The only difference is that being exempt from the law requires writing it into the law, and those pesky plebs might actually notice that (maybe).

      ...sounds to me like what you're describing is indeed a situation where a segment of the population is above the law - and as I said, that to me is far more dangerous than a situation where everyone is a criminal.

      I don't think the situation is that much more dangerous... besides, talking about that is like arguing about whether Hitler or Stalin was the more evil dictator; it doesn't really matter because they're both so far off the end of the scale already.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    16. Re:Waste of my tax dollars. by Tackhead · · Score: 1

      Let me ask you something - if everyone is guilty of something, how do government officials stay in the office?

      I'll draw on a third author for that: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
      - Orwell

    17. Re:Waste of my tax dollars. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Not sure what you got your panties all up in a bunch about.... sounds to me like what you're describing is indeed a situation where a segment of the population is above the law - and as I said, that to me is far more dangerous than a situation where everyone is a criminal.

      You must be a pussy to be splitting that cunt hair. And you're still wrong (as usual).

  16. In the spirit of Pro-Life by gerf · · Score: 1

    I propose that we call this bill the "Anti-Consumer" bill. Maybe the media would pick up on something that seems a bit more sinister and threatening. After all fear seems to be their calling card these days.

    1. Re:In the spirit of Pro-Life by CSMatt · · Score: 1

      You forget that the media are the ones pushing for the bill in the first place.

    2. Re:In the spirit of Pro-Life by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1

      Simply put, it's time for box number three.

      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
  17. Re:moderation? by Brigadier · · Score: 1

    no mod points for me either.

  18. In the words of Bill Hicks... by Picass0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I prefer the political puppet on the right.
    Well, I prefer the puppet of the left.

    Hey, the same guys are controlling both puppets! We're fucked!

    1. Re:In the words of Bill Hicks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just in case anyone thinks he's just joking:
      http://opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008

    2. Re:In the words of Bill Hicks... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      "Hey, the same guys are controlling both puppets! We're fucked!"

      Sorry, but presenting a false dichotomy is also why we're "fucked"!

      We have other choices. I suggest you start exercising those options before its too late. Well, okay, it might be too late, but maybe the echos of our screams might be heard in the future.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:In the words of Bill Hicks... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Given the way the voting system works, it is basically impossible to elect anyone to a Federal office that was not at one time associated with either the Republican or Democratic party. There are basically zero Congressmen who were elected as independants, regardless of what they profess to be now.

      There are actually laws regarding providing equal access to media and to the way national debates are organized. All these laws preclude 3rd parties getting any real exposure. If these laws were not sufficient, additional laws would be enacted.

      The Republicans and Democrats are in control. Do not fool yourself by believing they have left any way to lose control.

  19. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The war on copyright infringement is not a sane way to spend the governments money... i mean come on, we're almost at 10 trillion in national debt and now they want to create an organization, with a 7 figure salary guy at the top that seizes computers that jimmy made mp3s on from his cd collection, not knowing that one of those cds had a rootkit that monitored this and turned him in to this organization?!?

    WTF like we need a new agency sucking 20-40 million a year just harassing computer users who went on kazza once, not knowing what it was and deleting it when they saw all the pedo crap on it..

  20. John Conyers by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

    Is a corrupt piece of crap who should be behind bars.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:John Conyers by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      You could replace his name with that of any elected official.

      In my book the definition of "politician" is "corrupt individual".

  21. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by nickhart · · Score: 1

    Yet there is an epidemic of abuse of the legal system by the RIAA and MPAA. This is yet another corporate giveaway. It's about protecting the profits of corporations, not defending the public interest. As usual. Welcome to capitalist "democracy."

    So-called "due process" is a joke in a nation with 1% of its population behind bars and proven racial disparities in sentencing.

  22. Geist.. yeah, sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I signed up for Geist's "opt out" site, now I get about TEN TIMES AS MANY telemarketing calls every day. HMMMMMM>?

  23. Sweet, sweet jury tail by spun · · Score: 1

    The copyright cops have to follow due process and you have the right to a jury tail. Good to know the fundamental rights are still being upheld. I gotta get me some of that jury tail, where do I sign up?
    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Sweet, sweet jury tail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A The Pirate Bay, of course! Any download will do.

    2. Re:Sweet, sweet jury tail by AnomalyConcept · · Score: 1

      It's a jury 'tail' because it's an afterthought. Maybe.

  24. All California Reps and Senators will vote Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sadly all California Congress reps and Senators will vote to pass this fascist pro corp anti citizen crap. It's hardly even worth writing them asking them to oppose it. We don't need more Federal Police and Prisoners.

    1. Re:All California Reps and Senators will vote Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly all California Congress reps and Senators will vote to pass this fascist pro corp anti citizen crap. It's hardly even worth writing them asking them to oppose it. We don't need more Federal Police and Prisoners.
      I live in California and I did write them. I got a letter back thanking me for supporting strong IP laws, and promises that they will continue to support such laws. I get constant reminder of how these elected congresscritters isn't listening to voters every time I write them about issues.
    2. Re:All California Reps and Senators will vote Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got the same letter from Feinstein which is why I posted that. As I live in a hick town in Central California I guess my soon free and recent Anime fansubs are about to disappear as are most of the IRC networks I lurk on. Time Warner is about to loose me as a customer as I don't watch Cable TV.

  25. So do the regular cops, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That doesn't stop the regular cops from abusing their ability to seize people's stuff.
    Do we REALLY need a copyright czar? Who are they protecting here?

    Or is my sarcasm detector malfunctioning?

    1. Re:So do the regular cops, but... by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1

      According to the various sources you read, everything on my blog/forum comments/youtube uploads is mine via copyright. Will these "cops" protect me too and seize every computer they can find wth a copy (cache) of my flickr photos?

      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
    2. Re:So do the regular cops, but... by andy_t_roo · · Score: 1

      in http://copywrite.org/2008/01/30/pro-ip-act-of-2007-h-r-4279/ (text of the act as of january), the only place seizure of equiment is mentioned is section 321 a.7.A.iv which reads
      "Protecting intellectual property rights overseas by working with other countries to ensure that such countries provide for the seizure of property used to produce pirated and counterfeit goods;"

      IANAL but to me it seems that a)it is not the seizure of equipment receiving pirated goods, its the equipment used for duplication, so its the sender not the receiver which would lose the equipment. b) this section isn't talking about actions by american forces against american people, it is talking about american political encouragement towards overseas countries in order to get them to seize equipment also.

      Can someone point out to me where generic seizure of computer equipment in copyright violation cases is mentioned?

    3. Re:So do the regular cops, but... by Mathinker · · Score: 1
      I don't have the time to figure out everything but look at Section 202:

      (1) Civil forfeiture proceedings. (A) The following property is subject to forfeiture to the United States: ....
      (iii) Any property used, or intended to be used, to commit or facilitate the commission of a violation of subsection (a) that is owned or predominantly controlled by the violator or by a person conspiring with or aiding and abetting the violator in committing the violation.
      If "subsection (a)" includes illegal uploading or downloading, then that means any equipment used to do those things can be seized (it is forfeit). My guess is that this is what the people complaining about the law are referring to, unfortunately, I'm not skilled enough to figure out exact what/which "subsection (a)" is being referred to...
    4. Re:So do the regular cops, but... by malinha · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Protecting intellectual property rights overseas by working with other countries to ensure that such countries provide for the seizure of property used to produce pirated and counterfeit goods;"
      So, the US "war on IP" is now going to invade Sweden, because they have "weapons of mass distribution AKA The Pirate Bay"...
      Love this wonderful ideas that come from genius people.
  26. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by moderatorrater · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The copyright cops have to follow due process And in the meanwhile, they can take some meager/manufactured "evidence", turn that into a warrant where they seize every piece of mail, computer, and storage device in your house. Then you have to hire a lawyer. You'll get all of that back when the trial's done in a year or two unless the jury decides to convict you on that same flimsy evidence. 12 peers helps make things reasonable, but it's still a crap shoot, and you're out the lawyer money either way.
  27. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1

    The problem being this, copyright infringement is NOT a criminal offence. It's a civil matter. No one, not one single person is in prison for the crime of "copyright infringement", at all.

    --
    Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
  28. valid analogy invoked the first by unity100 · · Score: 1

    idiot to jump on an internet fad to harass a valid analogy.

    1. Re:valid analogy invoked the first by CSMatt · · Score: 1

      How exactly is that a valid analogy? The Nazis were actually killing their enemies, not just rounding them up. I haven't read the PRO-IP Act, but I'm pretty sure that it doesn't mention anything about allowing these copyright cops to kill offenders.

    2. Re:valid analogy invoked the first by calebt3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It didn't start with killing.

    3. Re:valid analogy invoked the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What really matters is that you're using the word "enemies" without even thinking about it.

      The people are "enemies" of the cops? For engaging in imaginary victimless crimes?
      The cops are the "enemies" of the people for enforcing absurd and abusive laws?

      It no longer matters whether you use words like Nazi once you reveal that deeper thinking,
      even as you defend your "enemies".

    4. Re:valid analogy invoked the first by Jurily · · Score: 1

      Yet.

    5. Re:valid analogy invoked the first by HappyEngineer · · Score: 2

      My neighbor's car alarm is worse than Hitler.

      See what I did there? I'm obviously claiming that my neighbor's car alarm killed millions of jews.

      Some people might get confused and think I was merely expressing intense dislike for my neighbor's car alarm, but people like you know what I mean.

    6. Re:valid analogy invoked the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://xkcd.com/344/

      Humor aside, I say it's time for hardware-level encryption to become commonplace on home pcs.

      If the goverment won't stand up to this bullshit, than it's time for the body that (in theory, at least) is superior to them to. All of us.

    7. Re:valid analogy invoked the first by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's lots of evidence that many law enforcement agents already have an "us versus them" viewpoint when it comes to the general populace. Is it really surprising that the general populace is starting to feel the same way?

    8. Re:valid analogy invoked the first by DrLang21 · · Score: 1

      Yes, for the Nazis, citizens who were Communists, Communist sympathisers, and basically anyone who questioned Hitler's rule were enemies and they intentionally treated them as such.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    9. Re:valid analogy invoked the first by muszek · · Score: 1

      Dude, you owe me some those 2 secods that I spent on copying and pasting.

    10. Re:valid analogy invoked the first by skarphace · · Score: 0

      Yes, for the Nazis, citizens who were Communists, Communist sympathisers, and basically anyone who questioned Hitler's rule were enemies and they intentionally treated them as such. Nazi Germany was not a communist nation.
      --
      Bullish Machine Tzar
  29. Contact him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know why, but they left out the contact link, where you could let Rep. Conyers know what you think of this bill.

  30. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by lgw · · Score: 1

    "Due process - isn't that how they make Velveeta?" - Bull

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  31. This is Perfect! by PurpleZebra · · Score: 1

    Now all we have to do is look at who sponsored this bill and we can find out who is taking bribes seeing as this has absolutely nothing to do with America but only lining the pockets of the great John Conyers!

  32. Just patent democracy to show them! by Doug52392 · · Score: 1

    Here's the PERFECT solution to showing those politicians in Washington just how fucked up the patenting system is: patent "The act of participating and voting in a Presidential election in the United States", then sue the government for copyright violations! Or better yet, patent "The act of holding a Congressional session"

    1. Re:Just patent democracy to show them! by azgard · · Score: 1

      Won't work. They don't infringe any patent on democracy, as far as I know. Maybe if you patented fascism, that could work..

  33. Wait... by calebt3 · · Score: 1

    If they unfairly seize a Linux box, and that seizure is proved in court to be unconditional, could one demand compensation for the value of everything lost? I understand the Red Hat source code is worth ~$5.5 billion...

    1. Re:Wait... by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      Gahh. Stupid italic tags. I forgot I was trying Extrans...

  34. Actually, this could be fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I haven't read the bill, so I could be off the mark, but if we have IP cops, then there's someone I can call when somebody doesn't respect my creative commons licensing. This is great. Let's use the cop police. Let's start by passing the word amongst US flickr users:"If somebody rips a picture of yours without your authorization and against your licensing terms, call the IP police!"

    I'm sure they'll be real glad investigating all these IP violations.

    1. Re:Actually, this could be fun by Rod+Beauvex · · Score: 1

      You do realize you won't have access to this service, right?

    2. Re:Actually, this could be fun by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

      once he realizes this fact he will resort to masked IP vigilantism.

      --
      Balderdash!
  35. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Informative

    The PRO-IP act would change that.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  36. quickboot by symbolset · · Score: 1

    Boot the rascals out. All of them. Even the ones that vote against it will do so because passage of this evil plan is a foregone conclusion and so the powerful puppetmasters will vote against it to a negotiated victory for the plan. Out with them. All of them.

    If you give a damn about liberty and privacy boot the rascals out.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:quickboot by calebt3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Something another /.er posted at some point that I found interesting:

      ===================
      545 People
      By Charlie Reese --

      Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

      Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?

      Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

      You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

      You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

      You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

      You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

      You and I don't control monetary policy, The Federal Reserve Bank does.

      One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

      I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress.

      In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

      I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority.

      They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing.

      I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

      Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

      What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.

      No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.

      The president can only propose a budget.

      He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

      The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.

      Who is the speaker of the House?

      She is the leader of the majority party.

      She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want.

      If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

      It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.

      I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

      When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

      If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

      If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

      If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.

      If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

      There are no insoluble government problems.

      Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.

      Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

      Those 5

    2. Re:quickboot by Simple-Simmian · · Score: 1

      Hear, hear.

      --
      If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
      Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
    3. Re:quickboot by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Wow.
      That's what I call 'calling a spade a spade' in very eloquent words.
      Wow.

      BTW, thanks very much for this. One of the more thought provoking things I've seen here in a while.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    4. Re:quickboot by Alsee · · Score: 1

      While there is certainly a measure of truth in there, it completely misses the true cause behind most of those problems.

      And that true cause is the fact that the people, the general public, the voters, are in general shortsighted and stupid. The voters pretty well insist politicians lie to us, tell us fantasy stories, and do stupid things.

      Why do we have deficits? Because voters want to hear promises that the government will give us various new swell things that cost money, and people want to hear lower taxes. Any politician who doesn't say one of these things, and generally say BOTH of these things at the same time, can't get elected.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  37. You clearly know little about asset forfeiture by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    They can seize all of your assets by claiming that they were involved in a crime. Then, suddenly, your "due process" rights are defended by a public defender because you are dirt poor. "Due process" on property rights was largely destroyed because of the asset forfeiture laws and a bunch of motherfucking judicial scumbags who like to split hairs about issues like whether or not it is really a violation of your constitutional rights to allow the police to "charge your property" with a crime instead of charging **you** with a crime.

  38. If this passes... by MrKaos · · Score: 2, Insightful
    soon after will we have

    Seed cops; Those seeds are copyright - you cannot plant them/you violated copyright by planting them

    IP cops; thank you for welcoming us to your business, we will now audit all of your computer systems

    RIAA cops; thank you for welcoming us to your home, we will now audit all your media for copyright violations

    MPAA cops; You know when you pirate a movie a small child dies in a third world country, you should be ashamed of yourself

    And of course the "say goodbye to innovation cops", these guys will be the thought police come to audit your head for having ideas that just happened to already be copyright.

    Big Mother in sooo many ways.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:If this passes... by revengebomber · · Score: 1

      soon after will we have

      Seed cops; Those seeds are copyright - you cannot plant them/you violated copyright by planting them

      We already have that. It's called Monsanto Co., Legal Division.
      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    2. Re:If this passes... by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      What you have mentioned already exists.
      Monsanto has seed cops and can sue you even if their seed was blown off a truck and landed in your field, without your knowledge.
      IP Cops exist at borders.
      RIAA and MPAA cops are well known for sending notices to universities.
      Innovation?? What the heck is that? And are you thinking the same thing am thinking? See ya in court.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  39. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is still a clear demonstration of who "our" representatives really represent.

  40. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1

    No it doesn't, please read the act.

    --
    Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
  41. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  42. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  43. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    The copyright vans drive out in the a.m.
    The ip's are real and have real people, with real hd's.
    Courts know nothing about "routers" or 'wi fi"

    The ip's will have connected to the
    server and may have copyright files.

    You sit down with a free defence lawyer who just
    graduated from real estate and law night school.

    A quick look into your hd's finds 'files'.
    Time to look at the offer - sign right now and get 15 years.
    You must also talk about a few of your friends.
    Sign now.
    The other option is to face court.
    Every file is worth 15 years.
    Two new words: consecutive and concurrent.

    How many people will get to face court and have a
    real computer expert talk about 'routers'?
    Best just to sign.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  44. Maybe people will stop watching. by analog_line · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Don't get me wrong, I think this is insane, and I hope it goes the way of similar bills before it, but the tighter the so-called "content cartels" grip on their copyright, the more persuasive the arguments for Creative Commons, GPL (v2 or v3), and other similar copyright-related social movements become. The same laws that protect the iron grip of Disney on Mickey Mouse for as long as they can legislate it, also protect those who participate in the Creative Commons (like Nine Inch Nails to take a totally non-random example) from the Disneys, the Time Warners, and the Sonys of the world. They can only be the gatekeepers of "the culture" if YOU choose to pay the entry fee. There's plenty enough out there that they don't control, that they CAN'T control anymore. All this sound and fury is trying to make people focus on them instead of looking for alternatives. There's no such thing as bad publicity, and all that.

    The onus is on those who claim that art should be for love and not money to put up or shut up. If you're an artist, go make some art under something like Creative Commons that both allows you to make money off it when someone else is making money off it (and sue the pants off them if they don't pay you for it), and allows people who aren't making money off it to spend as much money as they want spreading the word about how awesome you are. If you're not an artist, don't forget that artists need to eat as much as you do. Actually reach into that wallet and give money to artists that take a chance and produce work that you like under a Creative Commons license (or some other license with terms that aren't crazy) and be as generous as you can afford. Every Tom, Dick, and Sally that releases something under Creative Commons isn't worth supporting just because they're releasing as Creative Commons. There is a TON of freely distributable junk out there. However there ARE people out there that every one of us reading this story would feel comfortable supporting, and rather than shovel money on a monthly basis into Comcast's, or Sirius', or Time Warner's or whomever's bank account for content that isn't worth using as toilet paper, a small fraction of that money could make a world of difference for one of the people that IS taking a risk and releasing good content under terms that are reasonable.

    Where the hell is the Creative Commons Foundation of the Arts, taking donations and patronizing quality artists that release work under the Creative Commons like the foundations supporting free software? Do you think this stuff grows on trees?

    1. Re:Maybe people will stop watching. by Truekaiser · · Score: 1

      until they lobby for those licenses to be outlawed..

    2. Re:Maybe people will stop watching. by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately for them and fortunately for us they can't go there. It would invalidate THEIR licensing as well to do that- especially in the case of the GPL. It's a standard derivative works license at it's core. There's nothing there for someone to safely "make illegal" that wouldn't fubar up the cartel's postions.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  45. That's okay, history proves differently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prohibition was a CONSTITUTIONAL change. And even it didn't work.

    So puny laws like this one won't have any effect against the pirates, united, who will never be defeated.

    1. Re:That's okay, history proves differently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prohibition also didn't have large companies with big budgets pushing it, and large amounts of cash either siding for a candidate's election, or paid to a rival next election year.

      Simple point: Well heeled lobbyists pass the laws. The three branches just obey the orders that are barked to them and put the laws on the books.

  46. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

    No one, not one single person is in prison for the crime of "copyright infringement", at all.

    Sure, use present tense, and say copyright infringement instead of DMCA violation, and no one can say you're wrong. But still, shit happens.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  47. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

    And when will that right get taken away?

  48. Re:moderation? by mrbluze · · Score: 1

    No mod points? A sudden burst of unfiltered posts. An unbiased reflection of the vast mediocrity of mankind with all its inanity. Or is it a haystack full of golden needles? Ouch! These stupid analogies are beginning to hurt.

    --
    Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
  49. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by mrbluze · · Score: 1

    The copyright cops have to follow due process and you have the right to a jury tail. You will get the best justice that money can buy!
    --
    Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
  50. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The copyright cops have to follow due process and you have the right to a jury tail.

    My goodness, what a protected life you must lead.

    The reality is that cops follow procedure when and if they feel like it. Furthermore, merely being accused of a crime is a punitive action in this country (taken before you even get your due process and your jury trial.) Getting arrested is no fun, especially if you haven't done anything. Then you have the joyful experience of defending yourself before said jury, and when you lose because the copyright owners have unlimited funds and you do not, you're life is thoroughly trashed. That's even more true when you're fighting for your rights in a criminal court, versus a civil one.

    So be very, very careful of accepting any newfound powers our government arrogates to itself, especially those granted at the behest of the private sector.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  51. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by megaditto · · Score: 1

    Bad analogy: There are exactly zero US citizens held on drug charges without access to courts and lawers. There is exactly one (1) US citizen being held without trial on terrorism charges.

    --
    Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
  52. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1

    Very correct, thank you for reminding us. We should all remember this, sadly I had nearly forgotten.

    --
    Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
  53. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by nomadic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Bad analogy: There are exactly zero US citizens held on drug charges without access to courts and lawers. There is exactly one (1) US citizen being held without trial on terrorism charges.

    Well, one held without trial on terrorism charges that we know about. I would be surprised if there weren't more.

  54. Effective ways to push against this? by H310iSe · · Score: 1

    Any suggestions for effective ways American citizens can push against this legislation? Somehow I feel emailing my congresswoman doesn't really do much (and Pelosi probably opposes it anyway, I hope...).

    Howabout non-us citizens (i.e. my French and Canadian friends) anything productive they can do?

    --
    closed minded is as closed minded does
    1. Re:Effective ways to push against this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      donate to eff.

      http://www.eff.org/

    2. Re:Effective ways to push against this? by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      Howabout non-us citizens Non-US citizens aka Aliens interfering in US affairs will be subjected to rendition to eastern europe or worse, Syria.
      When we send our own citizens to Guantanamo under suspicion, what good are your Alien status going to do?

      One Advice: US citizens can donate significant amounts to senators under a pooled fund, and convince senators and congress critters to defeat the bill.
      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    3. Re:Effective ways to push against this? by andruk · · Score: 1

      The solution is not to pool our money. Think about it: then they get money from the lobbyists AND us. Assuming that the elections are fair (some elections have been suspicious), the solution to the problem is for the stupid people to wake up and start thinking about the way they want their country.

      Thought is the enemy of a non-free state, and the lobbyists are doing their hardest to make people as stupid as possible. Their plan is working, as those people who do think (./ers) are more or less outcast from the lobbyists/elitists in the country (although I'm sure you can find exceptions).

      I like that quote: "Thought is the enemy of any non-free state."

    4. Re:Effective ways to push against this? by Pichu0102 · · Score: 1

      You can push against it, of course!

      But pushing against the government is like pushing against a giant bear. It accomplishes nothing, and there's a good chance if you piss it off, you'll wind up "missing".

      This would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

    5. Re:Effective ways to push against this? by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      "Any suggestions for effective ways American citizens can push against this legislation?"

      Yup. It's called "Plenty of rifles and ammunition to go around". So far, it's worked pretty well: Nobody has taken my computers, or other things.....at least while I'm still alive. The RIAA and MPAA are more than welcome to try.

      For those who do not feel inclined to use deadly force against Big Brother, you can always rip and download from a WiFi network. If you actually *do* get caught, you can always say that you ripped the music from a CD and then threw the CD away, therefore the music you have on your computer is the copy you purchased, albeit in a different form (there is no law that says electronic music is illegal). A song in electronic form is just the same song as if it were in audible form: You still purchased it and then either converted it to either electronic form of audible form. Also, keep your audio/video files on a different, removable, encrypted hard drive. The drives that have features that destroy data and become an empty drive if an incorrect password is entered are fantastic. Also, rent and rip DVDs personally, so you can avoid hiden embedded code.

      Another tip is: DO NOT UPLOAD. Yes, I know file sharers will hate me for saying that, but that is where the copying and infringement take place.

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    6. Re:Effective ways to push against this? by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      The solution is not to pool our money Sorry buddy, but these days (for past 100 years), politicians listen to only one sound: The jingle of coins as they pour down in thousands into their vaults.
      Politicians have no inherent skill like us. They do not posses the skills of a newbie Visual Basic programmer or even a skills to run a Blockbuster rental.
      Their only skill is to match people with wants to people who have the necessary surplus of the items and taking a cut out of both. Much like the fox who offered to cut up a fish between two otters and ends up with the body of the fish while the two otters end up with head and tail of the fish.
      That is all the skill they have.
      And sometimes matching requires changing necessary laws to achieve that.
      They know they can be irrelavant any minute and hence they know they need to earn as much money as possible quickly.
      So naturally they have to milk it out of anybody who approaches them...

      Elections are minor inconvenience to them. See how Lieberman won easily a second time even though he was close to bush and people hated him...They need money to provide for themselves. They need money to provide for their familes. They need money to get elected again so that they could broker more deals....
      Its a self feeding cycle and highly automated.

      Lobbyists exist not DUE to politicians. They exist BECAUSE that is the only way to approach politicians.

      There are no unselfish good deeds. Period. You want something done, pay for it. Your opponent wants another deal, he pays more than you do...

      A politician refusing to accept money and doing only unselfish good deeds is as rare as the life of a water drop on a frying pan heated to 300 Deg. C.

      Sorry to burst your altruistic bubble, but that is how the world works and get used to it. My advice: Organize a local chapter or a lobby group, collect money and seek an appointment with your local congressmen. You will see how quickly you can get an appointment when your wallet is doing the talking.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    7. Re:Effective ways to push against this? by andruk · · Score: 1

      I believe that the legislature is in control over their own budget (eg: their own salaries), and they handle their own salaries much the same way CEOs commonly handle theirs: "Well, the country/company is tanking, but I tried really hard, and it really isn't my fault, so I'm just gonna get out of here with my millions of dollars. No harm, no foul, right?"

      Believe you me, I am not altruistic, but I believe that throwing money at the problem does nothing to advance towards a solution. Quite the opposite, a system in which the politicians are given money regardless of what they do is exactly what they want!

      That being said, I know stuff costs money. But if they say that they are doing a "service", especially when I, nor anybody else (save a few people) specifically wanted it (Sen. Ted Steven's bridge to nowhere, and Congress rejecting the funding for that project, but giving his state the money anyway and saying "You do what you want with it, we don't care" comes to mind), then I start to wonder just why they feel they should increase their salaries.

      In addition, if people are required to give money in order to be heard, then it effectively shuts out the voices of the poor. Maybe that's how it should be, but I don't think so. That's not what I signed up for.

      And a bit offtopic: that is a great sig.

    8. Re:Effective ways to push against this? by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      All true, but that is the reality.
      Yes, to be heard you need money. Yes that shuts down the voices of the poor who can express their views only by vote.
      Like in switzerland, if people vote for congressman's salary, then they suddenly will come to their senses.
      Throwing money at politicians is liek throwing drugs to a drug addict and expecting him to quit because you threw too much!
      Absolutely true. But that is how it is.
      Unless you organise a movement and demand change by vote or money nothing will happen.
      More likely if you crusade alone and if you are not Rockefeller, then you can expect to be Gitmo'ed or suicided'.
      Money for service is how it should be.
      If your congresscritter does what you constituents want in one year, then you authorize him a pay increase. Else no pay.

      Ask congress to promulgate such a law...impossible.
      Your example was perfect: a CEO voting for his own salary. Which is why shareholders should vote for it... but shareholders are too diffuse and own little. a CEO owns a lot and is moneyed. Who do you think the congressman will listen to?

      Changing the system from outside is impossible.
      Changing it from inside has a good chance.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  55. Preface to section 408 by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

    I'm afraid xkcd inches ever closer to reality:
    http://xkcd.com/344/

    Let us hope Ninja Stallman can defend us, because so far it's only looking like him, NewYorkCountryLawyer, and Lawrence Lessig are on our side.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  56. as they said by unity100 · · Score: 1

    it didnt start with killing. first it started with intimidation, censoring and oppression.

    1. Re:as they said by bob.appleyard · · Score: 1

      Beating people up, smashing shop windows, attempted coups...

      --
      How dare you be so modest!! You conceited bastard!!
  57. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dude, police appropriate goods that are "believed" to have been purchased with drug money all the time. It's up to the owner to prove that they were not. If that's not a violation of due process (innocent until proven guilty?) then what is?

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  58. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by dryeo · · Score: 1

    No, but there are lots of people who have lost much valuable property because they were accused of breaking drug laws.
    Basically in civil forfeiture the government sues your property, accuses it of being involved in breaking the law and seizes it.
    Good luck proving otherwise.
    Quick overview, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forfeiture

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  59. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Not all copyright infringement is a crime, but some is. See 17 USC 506 and 18 USC 2319. N.b. that some copyright infringement has been criminalized since the late 19th century, in the US, so it's not a new thing.

    --
    -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  60. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by j-turkey · · Score: 1

    The war on copyright infringement is not a sane way to spend the governments money... i mean come on, we're almost at 10 trillion in national debt and now they want to create an organization, with a 7 figure salary guy at the top that seizes computers that jimmy made mp3s on from his cd collection, not knowing that one of those cds had a rootkit that monitored this and turned him in to this organization?!? WTF like we need a new agency sucking 20-40 million a year just harassing computer users who went on kazza once, not knowing what it was and deleting it when they saw all the pedo crap on it..

    Hear hear. I couldn't agree more.

    While I understand the need for law and order, I also realize that law enforcement and courts are already stretched thin. Our incarceration rate is also unacceptably high.

    Turning a civil offense into a criminal offense while creating a new police agency and granting new powers to law enforcement is not a wise move. New powers are always used in unexpected ways, and the original intent and spirit of these new powers are often stretched beyond acceptable limits.

    --

    -Turkey

  61. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by Alsee · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not merely the DMCA that is criminal. The N.E.T. act in fact turned a substantial percentage of the entire U.S. population into felons. In particular essentially everyone who has ever used P2P at all - tens of millions of people right there - are felons. And it goes beyond that. Two elementary school children who swap oldskool audiocassette tapes are felons. And more.

    The United States No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), a federal law passed in 1997, provides for criminal prosecution of individuals who engage in copyright infringement, even when there is no monetary profit or commercial benefit from the infringement. Maximum penalties can be five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. -- The term "financial gain" includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.

    Title 17 United States Code
    Section 506 Criminal offenses
    (a) Criminal Infringement. --
    (1) In general. -- Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed --
    (A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
    (B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
    (C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.


    So under section (A) it is Criminal Infringement if you infringe and have "receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works", criminalizes ANY P2P use if you upload some much as a single file and download so much as a single file. Or if you exchange some much as a an audiocassette mix tape, or almost anything else.
    Under section (B) "reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000 pretty well covers any nontrivial uploading anywhere or almost any sort of nontrivial distribution at all, even if you never receive anything at all.
    Section (C) criminalizes any "pre-release" leak whatsoever. Note that later text "clarifies" that a movie released to movie theaters is still in "pre-release", so any leak of a movie running in theaters but "has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility" is criminal.

    Prison sentence:
    Up to 10 years for a second offense.
    Up to 5 years for "the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500". (Which would cover moderate P2P usage.)
    Up to 1 year "in any other case". (Covering effectively anyone who has ever touched P2P at all, any anyone who has done any of a number of other trivial things such as swap mix tapes.)

    I figure the US population is currently subject to well over a hundred million person-years in prison.

    And for bonus points, I love the way industry lawyers pulled off most of this insane law by slipping an innocent looking sentence into the DEFINITIONS section of law, and advertising their beloved bill as merely updating copyright law to properly deal with commercial criminal infringement operations. That's the typical sort of thing that goes on when you literally allow industry lawyers to write the laws we pass.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  62. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by Alsee · · Score: 1

    Oops, the some text got botched in my above post. It should have read:

    Title 17 United States Code
    Section 101 Definitions

    The term "financial gain" includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  63. This is really disappointing. by StarKruzr · · Score: 1

    Usually I find John Conyers to be one hell of a stand-up American. It's really unfortunate that on this issue he's either allowed himself to be bought or duped.

    --

    +++ATH0
  64. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    >No, but there are lots of people who have lost much valuable property because they were accused of breaking drug laws.

    So the smart growers rent.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  65. Abu Ghraib by MacDork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Nazis were actually killing their enemies

    I have a picture for you. Look familiar? Killed in captivity. He entered that death camp alive and in good health. There's another death camp down in Cuba. We're lobbing missles at civilians with impunity in Somalia and carting off "terror suspects" to more death camps in Ethiopia. You have citizens disappearing off the street, being held in secret and tortured, with no trial or charges for years. Tell me, when does it get to be Nazi enough for you??

    1. Re:Abu Ghraib by LaskoVortex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tell me, when does it get to be Nazi enough for you??

      It will only become Nazi enough for me when they come for me.

      --
      Just callin' it like I see it.
    2. Re:Abu Ghraib by DrLang21 · · Score: 1

      It's sad that we're getting all of the bad and none of the good. Where's my rebounding economy and Bush Youth?

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
  66. Representatives by Traze · · Score: 1

    I think if we all let out reps know whats on our minds, maybe the lobbying groups wouldn't have as much power. But it's probably all in my head.

  67. Classic childhood ruse... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

    Want a puppy? Ask for a horse.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  68. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    Keep in mind that it has been decided by the Supreme Court that you're only entitled to a jury trial if you're charged with something that carries at least a six-month prison term. Oh, and that has to be within a single charge - they've already ruled that if you face 100 counts of a 1-month sentence that you don't get a jury trial.

    Oh, and if the evidence is flimsy they might not charge "you" at all - they'll just charge your stuff. The constitution provides no protections for your stuff - so in a hearing that is basically just a formality it gets confiscated. You don't have any standing to be involved in the trial.

    I'm not quite sure where you find any of that in the constitution, but it happens...

  69. Re: G's law - first post... by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    But isn't that barely preferable to the usual first posts?

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  70. Oh good by Gewalt · · Score: 1

    Oh good. This means we are that much closer to being completely 100% fucked.

    --
    Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
  71. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by indifferent+children · · Score: 1

    No, it's how they make Mountain Due.

    --
    Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
  72. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by spikedvodka · · Score: 1

    Keep in mind that it has been decided by the Supreme Court that you're only entitled to a jury trial if you're charged with something that carries at least a six-month prison term. Oh, and that has to be within a single charge - they've already ruled that if you face 100 counts of a 1-month sentence that you don't get a jury trial. I wonder where they got that idea...
    Amendment VI

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

    I'd be interested to see their reasoning
    --
    I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
  73. It's not a meme yet, need explanation: by PMBjornerud · · Score: 1

    Reference:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olm7xC-gBMY

    Surely, there must be a connection here. FPS games are merely training tools for violent copyright infringement terrorist.

    --
    I lost my sig.
  74. this entire thread should be modded offtopic by spidercoz · · Score: 1

    seriously, what the fuck does this have to do with anything? isn't ANYONE here slightly concerned we're taking the first steps to forming our very own thought police??? this entire bill reeks of something out of a Philip K. Dick story, all we need is some guy running

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
  75. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by spikedvodka · · Score: 1
    Yeah, I know... Bad form replying to self, but hey...

    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. so I guess that means that the supreme court has decided that 6 months in jail is worth $20.00 but 5.9 months is only worth $19.99
    --
    I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
  76. The hidden upshot? by roju · · Score: 1

    A phone rings at KGB headquarters:

    "Hello?"
    "Hello, is this the KGB?"
    "Yes. What do you want?"
    "I`m calling to report my neighbor Yankel Rabinovich as an enemy of the State. He is hiding undeclared diamonds in his fire wood."
    "This will be noted."
    The next day, the KGB visit Rabinovich`s house. They search the shed where the fire wood is kept, break every piece of wood there, but find no diamonds. They swear at Yankel Rabinovich and leave.
    The phone then rings at Rabinovich`s house.
    "Hello, Yankel! Did the KGB come?"
    "Yes."
    "Did they chop up your firewood?"
    "Yes, they did."
    "Okay, now it`s your turn to call. I need to have my vegetable patch plowed."

  77. This is a joke, right? by ibsteve2u · · Score: 0

    Gotta love "free trade"...everybody that competes with America doesn't allow themselves to be unncessarily burdened by America's copyright and/or patent laws as the Americans do.

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  78. somethingawful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if this becomes law, will the copyright cops subject people like Richard Kyanka, Eric Baumann, and various other internet douchebags to orbital bombardment? Because then I'd be all for it.

  79. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    They don't just say I think you used drug money to pay for this so we are taking it. They have to work out a formula that takes your normal income into consideration and the probability of being able to afford it considering your lifestyle and legit income. That would be due process according to the law.

    If this isn't happening, then yes, there is a serious violation of due process and anyone effected by it could sue on those grounds. However, in every case that I know of, the formula has worked out pretty well and there has been no succesful challenges to the process. As for material that is mobile, the police take custody of it so it doesn't disappear which would be no different then suspected stolen property. Again, part of due process.

    Unfortunately, Due Process isn't something defined by the constitution. It is left to be defined by the legislature and the courts. This means what you think is "due process" can actually change over time and still be "due process".

  80. So true it's sad... by Bryansix · · Score: 1

    The above post is sad but true.

  81. Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    Considering that most courts value a hard-working member of society's time at about $5/day for jury duty, I'm not surprised that they value the time of a felon so lowly!

    But yes, I find it ironic that you can get a jury if you sue your neighbor for $500, but you can't get one if you face 4 months in federal prison and a stiff fine. The $20 guideline only applies to civil suits...

  82. Or in the words of Clarence Gillis... by Jeff+Carr · · Score: 1

    This is the story of a place called Mouseland. Mouseland was a place where all the little mice lived and played, were born and died. And they lived much the same as you and I do.

    They even had a Congress. And every four years they had an election. Used to walk to the polls and cast their ballots. Some of them even got a ride to the polls. And got a ride for the next four years afterwards too. Just like you and me. And every time on election day all the little mice used to go to the ballot box and they used to elect a government. A government made up of big, fat, black cats.

    Now if you think it strange that mice should elect a government made up of cats, you just look at the history of the United States and maybe you'll see that they weren't any different than we are.

    Now I'm not saying anything against the cats. They were nice fellows. They conducted their government with dignity. They passed good laws--that is, laws that were good for cats. But the laws that were good for cats weren't very good for mice. One of the laws said that mouseholes had to be big enough so a cat could get his paw in. Another law said that mice could only travel at certain speeds--so that a cat could get his breakfast without too much effort.

    All the laws were good laws. For cats. But, oh, they were hard on the mice. And life was getting harder and harder. And when the mice couldn't put up with it any more, they decided something had to be done about it. So they went en masse to the polls. They voted the black cats out. They put in the white cats.

    Now the white cats had put up a terrific campaign. They said: "All that Mouseland needs is more vision." They said:"The trouble with Mouseland is those round mouseholes we got. If you put us in we'll establish square mouseholes." And they did. And the square mouseholes were twice as big as the round mouseholes, and now the cat could get both his paws in. And life was tougher than ever.

    And when they couldn't take that anymore, they voted the white cats out and put the black ones in again. Then they went back to the white cats. Then to the black cats. They even tried half black cats and half white cats. And they called that coalition. They even got one government made up of cats with spots on them: they were cats that tried to make a noise like a mouse but ate like a cat.

    You see, my friends, the trouble wasn't with the colour of the cat. The trouble was that they were cats. And because they were cats, they naturally looked after cats instead of mice.

    Presently there came along one little mouse who had an idea. My friends, watch out for the little fellow with an idea. And he said to the other mice, "Look fellows, why do we keep on electing a government made up of cats? Why don't we elect a government made up of mice?" "Oh," they said, "he's a Communist! Lock him up!"

    So they put him in jail.

    --
    The television will not be revolutionized.
  83. Re: by clint999 · · Score: 0

    idiot to jump on an internet fad to harass a valid analogy.