H.R. 4279 Would Establish Federal IP Cops

MrSnivvel writes "H.R. 4279, Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008, is gaining momentum in Congress. It passed the House a few days back. It would allow the Feds to seize hardware that has even one file coming from 'dubious origins,' e.g. downloaded from P2P. If passed into law, the bill would establish an Intellectual Property Enforcement Division within the office of the Deputy Attorney General. Rep. John Conyers says the goal is to 'prioritize intellectual property protection to the highest level of our government.'"

Comments

Watch out WoWers!

[aussie_a]

It would allow the Feds to seize hardware that has even one file coming from 'dubious origins,' e.g. downloaded from P2P

So if a computer has anything they got from p2p, then the cops can confiscate their computers? So if, say, a cop doesn't like someone's politics, ethnicity, race, sexuality or gender and that cop knows the person plays WoW, they can confiscate the person's computer with no possible recourse for the victim? Sure a charge won't come from it, but they get to make life annoying for that person.

So...

[Kuroji]

How do you verify that a file is or is not pirated, exactly? And whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?

For that matter, do those reps think that this will make law enforcement give one whit about people stealing albums? They already have enough to deal with in terms of real crime, and they're going to utterly ignore this anyway.

Re:Well

[Ethanol-fueled]

"You sharpen the human appetite to the point where it can split atoms with its desire; you build egos the size of cathedrals; fiber-optically connect the world to every eager impulse; grease even the dullest dreams with these dollar-green, gold-plated fantasies, until every human becomes an aspiring emperor, becomes his own God... and where can you go from there?" -- Al Pacino in The Devil's Advocate

Seizing hardware

[Kingston]

It would allow the Feds to seize hardware that has even one file coming from 'dubious origins,' Every time there is a police investigation here in the UK you see them taking computer equipment as part of the investigation. Even if no charges are brought it can be weeks before people get their kit back. Seeing how reliant everyone is on their computers now, it almost looks like it is a punitive measure in itself.

This is not capitalism

[MikeRT]

Civil asset forfeiture laws are the antithesis of capitalism. They are a means by which the state can seize any property it wants simply by finding some nebulous connection to a crime. Did you know that YOU don't even have to be the one accused of the crime? They can do all sorts of fun things like seize your car if your friend borrowed it, while you thought he was going to the store to buy a case of beer, and he really used to it to drive to a drug user's house to sell drugs. This sort of thing is entirely Fascist in its economics (you did know that Fascism is a collectivist economic system as well as a political one, right?)

Re:This is not capitalism

[arth1]

Whether you see a big difference between the two parties or not depends on where you yourself are, and your range of view.

If simplifying politics to a numeric scale from 0-100, and you yourself are at value 80, you may see a huge big difference between 70 and 90. However, someone in, say Europe, who is at 20, will see the two as pretty much the same.

And yes, compared to the wider spread most European countries enjoy, the two parties are very much alike. It's only when you compare them from an American viewpoint that they become vastly different.
There's a saying in Europe that the US has only two parties -- the ultra right wings and the republicans. It's very apt that the US Democratic party uses blue as its colour -- that's reserved for the conservative in Europe. And the democratic party is further to the right than almost any European conservative party. Heck, Ralph Nader is considered conservative by the standards in other western countries!

Also, let me remind you that almost every democratic representative voted for the invasion of Iraq and for the USA PATRIOT act. Judging by the actions of congress, I don't think a democratic president would have made much of a difference. The money would have been funnelled into different channels -- instead of going to friends in the oil industry, it might have gone to friends in other industries. But make no mistake, every single US president is bought and paid for by corporations. Including Obama or McCain, whichever one gets elected.

Civil asset forfeiture laws are why I hate lawyers

[MikeRT]

Only a lawyer could follow the logic that was used to uphold them. The judges, aka lawyers with power to determine the law's enforcement, ruled that since YOU aren't the one being accused (your property is) YOU have no due process right except to claim your property IFF you can prove that the property really wasn't used in the crime that the government is alleging. Doesn't matter if someone else hijacked your property to do it!

Any normal human being can look at the logic of civil asset forfeiture laws and realize that it is literally a legitimization of armed robbery by the government.

So, basically, we're ALL criminals.....

[Stanislav_J]

The question is: who doesn't have something on their computer that infringes copyright in some manner? It's not just the P2P crowd -- they might well share some of their booty with others, maybe even providing tracks on a CD-R to friends who have slow connections, or not enough savvy to use or desire to risk torrents. If you've ripped tracks from someone else's CD, technically you're violating a copyright. (Hell, the RIAA thinks that ripping your own CDs is infringement). How many people have software of dubious origin on their machines, either by design or ignorance? (All those grey market Windows and Photoshop CDs that are ubiquitous on eBay, for example.) For that matter, what about the mass of infringing material on YouTube? Download a clip from last night's American Idol before Fox has it pulled, and now your computer is ours....mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha. Even more damning is that there is hardly a website in existence that doesn't have SOMETHING on it -- a graphic, photo, quote, musical background -- that is, by the strictest standard of the law, an infringement of someone's copyright. Just viewing the website puts those items in your cache -- voila, you are now guilty...please hand over the computer quietly and there won't be any trouble.

Maybe this is a plot to help balance the budget. Instead of spending money on computers for all the federal agencies, they just seize as many as they need from all us hardened criminals.

Priorities?

[SuperMog2002]

Shouldn't they be prioritizing protecting the constitution (which forbids unreasonable search and seizure) to the "highest level of our government"

Re:ideas != property

[Curunir_wolf]

Unless i missed it in there, i don't see any thing in there that grants them more leeway to sieze a person(s) personal computer just because they think they have an idea which might be bad.

Maybe you missed this part:

(B) The forfeiture of property under subparagraph (A), including any seizure and disposition of the property and any related judicial or administrative proceeding, shall be governed by the procedures set forth in section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853),

So just like in drug cases, you don't even have to be convicted of a crime - you lose your property based on an accusation. Think of it as a DMCA notice that not only takes down your site, but also has a bunch of jack-booted thugs coming and seizing all your stuff.

Maybe they will pursue a conviction and maybe not. If you want your stuff back, you have to put up a bond equal to the value of the stuff that was taken, sue the federal government, and prove your innocence. Good luck with that.