PRO-IP and PIRATE Acts Fused Into New Bill

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) have just sponsored a new bill, the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008, which would combine the worst parts of the PRO-IP Act and the PIRATE Act. The basic idea is pretty simple: expand the Federal government to create something like the Department of Homeland Security for IP. The Copyright Czar then polices the internet and clogs the courts with thousands of civil lawsuits against individual infringers so the RIAA doesn't have to. Feel free to contact your representatives with your feelings about this bill. Right now, they believe the bill (PDF) will 'protect jobs.'"

Comments

Protect jobs?

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

Ermm.....more likely "will protect the stream of political contributions and lobbying money from the RIAA/MPAA/etc."

Re:Protect jobs?

[thermian]

the theory goes that if intellectual property can be protected totally, then money will be made in large amounts.

What it actually means is that as soon as profits are assured by this sort of action we will see distribution channels becoming more powerful, taking a bigger cut, and IP owners getting a smaller piece of the pie.

Not that it would work, no government that criminalises millions of its own citizens has done well in the long term.

Re:Protect jobs?

[Cheesey]

How many people are in prison for nonviolent drugs offences, "crimes" that wouldn't even be illegal in a free country? You can criminalise millions of people as long as the majority has a reason to look down on them; you can prohibit anything that the majority doesn't do (or won't admit to doing).

We can expect the War on Pirates to be the same runaway success as the War on Drugs. I think they will probably eventually succeed in forcing piracy off the public Internet, just as they forced drug dealers into the back streets. The pirating will, of course, continue by sneakernet.

Re:Protect jobs?

[thermian]

in this case the criminalised group would be predominantly middle class, since that is the social group with the highest percentage of internet access.

No-one cares if you criminalise lower class/unemployed/homeless/poor people. Really, they don't. Its amazing how little people with even a little success care about people less well off then them. It sounds cynical, but I'm only being honest. How many friends do you have that aren't in or above your social class?

Criminalise people who are successful, have nice houses, jobs, and are otherwise highly respectable, and you have a potential storm on your hands.

Re:Protect jobs?

[gerf]

Obviously we need another way to fun politicians then. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court gave businesses the rights of citizens, which in this case facilitates a de facto oligarchy.

The only solution, in my mind, would be for individuals to outnumber the businesses in their influence on Washington. There are only a few ways we have of influencing our representitives: Vote, Send money, campaign. What we need is a solution that combines those traits and organizes the real populace. I.E. a popular PAC.

What I'd like to see someone create is a website where an individual could in essence bribe their own representative by promising to donate $xx.xx if they vote correctly on a certain issue, promise that they will remember that vote (reminded by said website when election time comes), and that the general issue will be talked about/watched by that individual in the future. Imagine a House member receiving a message that they would receive $50,000 for their campaign in 3 years and that 5000 people will remember this particular vote when election times come around. Normally, they'd expect everyone to have forgotten the issue by that time, and not vote according to how the people think is best. Of course the site/PAC/whatever would have to be independent of party affiliation and open to both sides of every issue. Individuals can't be expected to watch every bill, so they'd have to be able to filter out what to watch for, and how votes are handled. Also, other PACs could use the site's infrastructure for payments or subscribing their own reviews of bills (a gargantuan effort as it is).

This would all be akin to the Ron Paul effort, where individuals showed a great resolve. On the presidential level, perhaps that effort wasn't great enough. But imagine influencing Representatives in the House or on State levels. Truly, some gains could be made there.

There may be something already like this, and it'd be difficult to manage, but it's the best idea I've had to correct many wrongs we've seen recently.

Re:Protect jobs?

[Scroatzilla]

I wonder what you mean by "shitty to be an artist"? All of this IP madness is predicated on middle men looking for the next best thing to distribute that will maximize return on investment. The reason they were even able to weasel into that spot they're in is because their artistic "victims" have based their decisions on wishes to become rich and famous.

The fact is that, particularly with music and movies since they have such high exposure these days, what is under contention is only the tip of the iceberg for consumable art/IP that is available. With the internet as a distribution center, this legal wrangling really is irrelevant to contemporary artists.

For any artist interested in simply exposing their talents (or lack thereof), this is quite an exciting time. If anything, this has opened people's eyes to the leaky shark tank that is the true nature of Big Media, and the fact that they don't HAVE to dive into it. Business people can do a lot of things to generate revenue, but they are really bad at being creative-- today's artists are slowly realizing that the power in any business relationship is (or can be) theirs in the end.

Re:Protect jobs?

[Maxo-Texas]

You have a key point...

And highlights a lamentable loss of distinction.

There is money and there is class.

Today we have a lot of wealthy low class people.

How many friends do you have outside of your wealth level?
Personally- I have quite a few through "Meetups" for my hobbies which cut across class lines.
I am careful to not let people know how well off I am.

If not for the meetups and internet- all my friends would be in my same wealth class.
The normal pattern I've seen in life is
1) The poor envy the wealthy- ends friendship.
2) The poor get into a crisis and want to be bailed out- ends friendship.
3) The wealthy go do activities their poor friends can't do- ends friendship.

Socially, I'm lower class headed towards middle class. I will never be upper class. The personal transformation I would have to go through is just too painful. I would feel like I was not me any more.

Re:Protect jobs?

[Lunarsight]

The truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country.... People shouldn't be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people.

Amen. I think we need to remind the government of that.

Dare I say it - is it time for another 1776?

Re:Protect jobs?

[illumin8]

Or a Jail Warden..

It's gonna be shitty to be an artist though ..

Actually, I believe the only way to break this law is to make it impossible for the government to prosecute. Everyone should just become basement "artists" and publish IP on the web. Put blogs up, and then force the government to prosecute Google, Yahoo, MSN search, for indexing your blog. Use automation to file copyright complaints in the millions against every index on the web. Overburden the courts with so many fake lawsuits that the government has no choice but to back down.

Our legislators have proven that they're bought and paid for by the lobbyists. It's past the point of them representing the people.

It's time for civil disobedience, and I think they'll find that there is no such thing as enforceable IP on the web.

Re:Protect jobs?

[billcopc]

If by "exciting" you mean "more dumb singing whores on TV", you're absolutely right.

The greatest challenge for artists these days isn't piracy, it's publicity. Everyone and their mother are "artists", and they mostly all suck. The signal-to-noise ratio is at an all-time low, to a point where marketing is the only "reliable" driving force left standing. As a small fry, it's probably better to sue every filesharer, just for the cheap publicity, than to spend the same amount on traditional merchandising and touring.

Creativity has little to do with it anymore. You either have to look like a dollar sign to the dirtbags in the suits, or have a real pretty mouth.

Re:Protect jobs?

[Solandri]

Just change it so only registered voters can contribute to political campaigns / political groups. If a company wants to spend $100,000 lobbying for a political change, they can just give it to their employees, stress to the employees the importance of contributing it to this effort so the company can survive and they can keep their jobs. If the employees agree and contribute the money, everything is fine. If the employees disagree and spend the money on a new TV, then the company has problems that aren't going to be solved by donating to a political campaign.

Re:Protect jobs?

[gerf]

That's illegal, I believe. You're not allowed to give money to other people to give to a political campaign. Even a hint of telling them to do so. Pretty much, you go to jail for this shit.

It reminds me of a guy at work (non-management) who said, "I don't know why [our company] and [main rivalry company] don't just say to each other let's not bid against each other." That sounds good too, but it'd also be collusion, and highly illegal.

Alas, it'd be nice if companies could not donate at all, but that still would not solve the problem. Although I'd say that wealthy CEOs and Presidents of companies might not have as much of an impact, or have much sway as the corporation as a whole.

Re:Protect jobs?

[kadehje]

Amen. I think we need to remind the government of that. Dare I say it - is it time for another 1776?

Unfortunately, most of the Western countries that secessionist Americans might seek alliances with are on the same side as Washington D.C. or don't like Americans in general any more because of the crap we've pulled in the past 7 years. The UK is at least as far down the surveillance and corporatist society as the U.S.A., and places like Australia and Canada seem willing to follow us in our footsteps. France and most of the rest of Europe wouldn't shed a tear if a major American city got nuked by al Qaeda, and as an American I don't blame them for this attitude.

The only reason why 1776 worked was we had French support. In the 1860's the Confederacy made the mistake of levying war while not being supported by a major world power (although the UK leaned in that direction at the start of the war, the issue of slavery turned the UK away from supporting the CSA as the war progressed). Although they got off to quite a nice start, the Washington D.C.-led army eventually crushed the South to the point where it took nearly a century (until after WWII) for the South to recover.

Violence is called for only when all other options have been exhausted. Otherwise, popular support for a violent act will always fall on the side of the state and against the perpetrator and will cause the movement behind the act to wither and die. When all peaceable options have been exhausted (e.g. criminal trials become farces, election results show the winner taking 98% of a turnout of 125%, demonstrations routinely becoming repeats of the Kent State massacre), then popular opinion will support or at least condone violence against the state. For a couple of examples of groups that challenged the U.S. and are now ridiculed by the majority of the American population, look at the Branch Davidians in Waco or the Michigan Militia. Unless a movement can amass the support of an overwhelming (like 80%+) portion of the American people or the official support of a major world power (China, Russia, UK, France, and maybe a couple others), taking on the U.S. government with head-on violence is pure suicide and will guarantee things will become even worse off for those you leave behind.

There are a lot of things that need to change in this country, but you need to ask yourself: (a) is war the only way left that change can be effected in this country, and (b) if so, is such a war winnable and/or are things so bad off that I'm willing to die in a futile war rather than maintain hope for an alternative solution? The answer to "a" for me is "no", but by the end of 2010 there may be a need for me to rethink my answer.

Re:Why do we need this?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Who's passing a bill? They introduce it, it gets shot down. Repeat. The other two didn't pass, did they? Everybody's happy. The corporations think that they're getting value for their money, the politicans pocket the campaign contributions, and slashdot readers get to froth at the mouth and try to construct new metaphors to explain IPR violations. Everyone wins!

Re:Amazing...

[TubeSteak]

This bill basically gives federal prosecutors the right to bring a civil suit against infringers on behalf of the copyright owner

The definition of a civil lawsuit includes the idea that the victim brings the lawsuit on their own behalf and pays their own legal fees.

If Federal Prosecutors are going to be bringing these lawsuits on the victim's behalf, maybe we should change the standard of proof from 'a preponderance' to 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Re:Its unbelievable !

[TubeSteak]

how can the ELECTED senators in your country can easily move against the wishes of the people, so blatantly, so fearlessly, so hypocritically ? unbelievable.

Because it is expensive and difficult to recall an ELECTED Senator, they generally get to do what they want for six years.

The fact that the majority of them get re-elected suggests that more often than not, whatever pork they bring home and put on their constituents' table outweighs the 'bad' votes they had to make in return.

The solution is simple!

[gabrieltss]

If everyone would quite buying the RIAA music, quite pirating it even. Quit buying the damn DVD's, quite going to see the movies, quit pirating movies. Show a complete and total drop I'm talking FLATLINE of sales and use for music and movies by the MAFIAA. What will be their argument be for their lost salse then? They would lose money to BUY politicians and would have to go out of business at some point. I hear you saying "boycotts just don't work." Why don't they? Because people have to have the latest RIAA pushed band's CD, they have to go see the lateset greatest MPAA pushed movie. "Hey when is American Idol on?". I haven't bought an RIAA labeld CD in 10 years I gave the RIAA my middle finger a long time ago. Instead of watching a movie I just read a book or play a video game. F@ck the MPAA too! America your deserving all the crap that is comming down on you - because your too damn lazy to do a damn thng about it. But, some of us still give a crap!

Me I wrote my senators and told them they should not vote for this crap. If they do it will show me that they have been bought off by the RIAA/MPAA and that I'll be informing as many of their "constiuants" as I can about their pro-corporate, anti-citizen votes.

Both republican & democrats are against the pe

[viking80]

The republican party is prioritizing business interests over consumers any time the have a chance.
And the democrats are all cozy and in bed with the Hollywood elite.

Expect RIAA, Viacom, Hollywood and all other companiers with IP content to consistently get everything they want from Wahington. As a consumer, dont even try to get your hopes up. You will continue to get screwed.

Just as a reminder: After entertainment became a big business with lobbyists around 1920, *no* new copyrighted work have expired. Every 10 years or so, it has been extended by at least 10 years, and is now about two lifetimes.

It will probably pass

[Anonymous Coward]

Previous attempts (PRO-IP, PIRACY bills) were proposed during a largely republican administration. The republican party gets most of its contributions from the international oil cartel (and a few other non-media-businesses), so they never really cared about those bills.

Now the administration is mostly democrats. It is still under a republican president, of course, but most of the congressmen are democrats. Traditionally, democrats receive their contributions directly from big media companies (Sony, Disney, etc), and as such they are much more likely to be sympathetic to the goals of this bill.

Even if this one gets shot down, I will bet that when Obama is president, the next incarnation of this bill will pass.

Welfare For the Rich

[kurt555gs]

This is a perfect example of bad government. The 'rich' love to offload their expenses onto the taxpayers thereby increasing their already obscene profits at our expense.

This is purely a mater of civil action between the **AA and whoever they are trying to bully. However, the courts are starting to see through this whole bad theory that (sharing == piracy ). The logical next step is to have your sock puppets in congress change the law, and put the burden of expense and bad publicity on the US government.

I still do not think that sharing is piracy, or for that matter even morally wrong. I do not buy the argument that sharing deprives anyone of anything. Just because some music or video reaches my senses, I do not think I owe some one money.

If I like a work, I will buy it. If I download something, listen to it, and decided it's crap, then I really do not think I should have to pay anyone.

I think piracy is when you make counterfeit CD's / DVD's and sell them as if they were genuine.

I see nothing wrong with sharing software, music, videos, etc to try them out.

Anyway, this law just codifies this whole mistaken belief, and criminalizes everyone.

If this passes, it is one of those crucial turning points in our countries history that signifies a complete shift to fascism.

I hope it does not make it. I really do.

publicity good, piracy bad

[cliffski]

I agree with you in many ways. Getting noticed as a small time content creator is hard. I make indie PC games, and my biggest problem is getting people to my site, and trying the demos. Beyond that, its much easier. If I could get the traffic that games made by activision or EA get, I'd be doing well.

BUT

That doesn't mean piracy is not a problem for us. Piracy can be a BIG problem. Ask any software or game or music creator if all web traffic is worth the same for example. I know tons of game devs, and the consensus is that traffic from these sites:

slashdot
digg
boingboing

is virtually worthless. Or even undesirable, because you get bandwidth with no sales, due to the predominance of piracy amongst that crowd. In contrast getting general traffic from google, or from game review sites is WAY more attractive, because that audience is more supportive of IP, and happy to buy the product.

Yes, small content creators need publicity, but they need publicity among people who aren't just going to take the product for free. Frankly, given a choice between 100 hits from gamespot or 5,000 hits from here, I'll take the 100.

I know this will get modded down, but its just the facts. This is why so many slashdot-shown adverts are hardware, rather than software and games and TV shows etc which are massively popular with the /. crowd. Only a fool advertises to people who won't buy, regardless how much they like your product...

Re:publicity good, piracy bad

[ultranova]

That doesn't mean piracy is not a problem for us. Piracy can be a BIG problem. Ask any software or game or music creator if all web traffic is worth the same for example. I know tons of game devs, and the consensus is that traffic from these sites:

slashdot
digg
boingboing

is virtually worthless. Or even undesirable, because you get bandwidth with no sales, due to the predominance of piracy amongst that crowd. In contrast getting general traffic from google, or from game review sites is WAY more attractive, because that audience is more supportive of IP, and happy to buy the product.

And yet you still put the address of your site in your signature. There seems to be a logical disconnect between that action and what you just said. Please explain ?

Re:publicity good, piracy bad

[kaos07]

You're the creator of Democracy 2 right?

I'm not sure how you feel about this, but this is my personal experience with piracy and your game.

I heard about Democracy, checked out the site, thought it looked pretty cool and headed over to The Pirate Bay were there about a dozen torrents. Soon enough I got over the game and then Democracy 2 came out, which is a A LOT better, and once again headed over to The Pirate Bay to play it. I liked I so much that I decided to buy it. Which I did, yesterday. I figured "Well this is one guy making a really fun and interesting game, he gets all the money and it's only $20! So now I'm enjoying it legally, you've got your money and everyone is happy. Thanks to The Pirate Bay.

Re:Why do we need this?

[sconeu]

This is not going to be a popular sentiment here, but....

Remember, this has to be signed into law. Hold your nose and write to Bush. Use his own prejudices to work for you. Point out how this is an unwarranted intrusion into business by the "liberal Hollywood Elite", etc... etc...

Re:against the group think

[ScrewMaster]

Nobody really cares if vendors want to lock up their products: that just makes them subject to free market forces. The next guy who comes along with a competing product that doesn't screw over the customer has a good chance of taking that business.

What we're objecting to is the power of the Federal Government being conscripted in a vain attempt to maintain the status-quo ante. Keep in mind that this approach has never worked before and invariably screws everyone else in the country. The needs of the relatively few people that lose their livelihoods in the entertainment industry do not supercede the rights and needs of everyone else.

George Guilder calls the process that the media conglomerates are currently undergoing (and attempting to stave off for as long as possible)) one of Creative Destruction. It began with the creation of the Internet itself, and will ultimately come to a logical conclusion regardless of what legal measures are taken. They know this, but being essentially uncreative mentalities, they are unable to see any other way to maintain their accustomed level of income other than going to Congress.