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."
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
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.
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.