Slashdot Mirror
Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Copyright Cops
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved the EIPA (the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008), which would create copyright cops. And these cops would take over the RIAA's War on Sharing by filing civil lawsuits and using civil forfeiture laws to take any and all computers engaged in infringement. Worse, they would even seize computers (such as servers or database farms) that house the data of innocent people, and these people would not have any right to get their data back. At best the 'virtual bystanders' who happened to have data on a computer used for infringement could get a protective order saying that no one should go rummaging through their stuff. Perhaps the only good thing in the bill is that they've excluded DMCA circumvention from the list of grounds for seizure. So while the Senators believe this is needed to combat foreign copyright infringement cartels, it's entirely likely that innocent people will be harmed by this law."
Dude, did you read TFA? Because, if the way ars describes it is accurate, the whole law is pretty much inflammatory.
It's downright scary!! The federal government will now pursue civil matters on behalf of private entities, with the inclusion for collateral damage of seizure of entire server farms. So, if you host with someone, and one of their customers infringes, you could lose all of your stuff with little or no recourse.
This is a very scary precedent, and it seems to blur some historical distinctions between federal agencies and private interests.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
(yes, copyrights are in fact rights, granted by law)
Law does not grant rights; it protects them. Law grants privileges. Despite the name, copyright in United States works is a privilege that the Congress can revoke at any time.
Do I have the right to write a song? Even that is questionable.
Anybody else notice that one of the members on this committee is Joe Biden, Senator from Delaware and VP nominee of the Democratic Party.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Not a good thing, but it's not law yet. You still have time to write your congresscritters.
And I see it's tagged "democrats." I find the party's support of the copyright lobby to be rather dismaying, but let's not ignore the fact that more than half of the Republicans on the committee also voted in favor. They're all willing to suck off the media companies, cause most people don't really know enough to care, and most of those that do just bitch about on slashdot.
I have no mod points.. but I hope someone mods you insightful... well done
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
(yes, copyrights are in fact rights, granted by law)
I shouldn't feed the trolls, but here goes.
It is not the job of the government to enforce copyright. It is the job of the copyright holder. Hiring MediaSentry is perfectly acceptable, PROVIDED THEY DO NOT BREAK THE LAW DOING SO. If they would get a PI license and stop gaming the courts, there wouldn't be as much of a problem.
On a related note, THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS. Read the god damn Declaration of Independence.
On a slight tangent: We are long overdue for a revolution. I give it 50 years, and we'll either be fighting another civil war, or sitting complacently on our couches watching the idiot box.
And as likely to succeed as all the others.
No sig today...
We've moved on from Capitalism to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_Acquisition
And to answer your question, it's because your government values said corporations more than it values you or your tax dollars.
Actually, in the case of Freddie and Fannie, it's because the government values you not having to live through an economic recession to rival the great depression.
*But*, the government absolutely fucked up by letting F&F get so big... having such a large single point of failure in the economy was absolutely ridiculous. But trust me, the way things are now, you'd rather the government stepped in to save F&F... the consequences to the alternative would've been devastating.
Which is basically a form of command economy called socialism.
No it isn't: It's a form of command economy called fascism.
I am officially gone from
That's a lovely diatribe (and ironically, I happen to agree, corporatism is no better than totalitarianism in my humble opinion), but I noticed you didn't disprove anything I said.
To be clear, I don't think the US government should make a habit of catering to corporations or bailing out failing businesses. But damnit, sometimes, you gotta compromise your ideals... otherwise you're just cutting off your nose to spite your face. And right now, the only logical thing to do, like it or not, is to protect those investors.
And no, there is no "fixing" this mess save for a fundamental overhaul of the entire delusion of "global free market"
Umm... huh? Fixing the problem is simple. Either eliminate the secondary mortgage market entirely, or institute regulation to prevent bad mortgages from being issued in the first place. And it'd also be worth scrutinizing those firms who's jobs are to rate investment vehicles.
The fact is, the "global free market" has nothing to do with it, although it does make a fun scapegoat, as your post illustrates. The US government is fundamentally responsible for the shitstorm that's sweeping the nation thanks to the hands-off approach they took to market management, and it's the US government that must be responsible for fixing it.