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."

26 of 185 comments (clear)

  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
  2. 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.
  3. 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 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?
    2. 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.
    3. 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.

  4. 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!

  5. 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.

  6. 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.
  7. Re:valid analogy invoked the first by calebt3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It didn't start with killing.

  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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

  11. 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?

  12. 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".

  13. 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.
  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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

  17. 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.
  18. 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).

  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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?