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."
I only scanned the article, but I don't understand how US pseudo-cops seizing US computers and servers is going to stop foreign copyright infringement. Unless these are somehow international cops, but I doubt that.
So, in a nutshell, you now pay for the RIAA to prop up their outdated and failed business model. Well, not really, you pay for people who do it for the RIAA. I kinda fail to see the public interest. Because that's what tax money should be spent on.
When I want to wage a war against my neighbor because I think he might do something illegal (ya know, he's one of those $minorty_group, and we all know they $stereotype), the public doesn't care, as they should. I can't go to the police station and demand that they install some surveillance cams and send a car by his house every couple minutes. Actually, I might have a suit for harrassment on my ass for doing so myself.
Can someone explain why the RIAA is entitled to harrassing people, now not only with their own witchhunters but by people that YOU pay for?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
...it's entirely likely that only innocent people will be harmed by this law.
There, I fixed it.
Never ask for directions from a two-headed tourist! -Big Bird
that this is a make-or-break issue... that is, if it ever comes up for a vote. If it does, I sure as hell intend to tell mine that if they vote for it, they will never receive a vote from me, for any office, again.
That's all of Europe, the Far East - anywhere with fast bandwidth and cheap power that'll be hosting US websites now. Folk will be setting up anywhere with a building and good connectivity that's out of reach of these people. Maybe if someone pointed out that fact to your lawmakers they would stop this ludicrous suggestion. Until then we will commiserate with you, host your websites, and hell the way the dollars climbing we don't mind that much if you want to pay with greenbacks either.
I can't wait for the day that my shit can be taken and I can be locked up just for walkin down the street.
It'll happen.
... as its easier for ego manic cops to bust the innocent then it is for them to sweat it out busting organized crime.
incredible simple math that a kindergarten kid even knows at the sandbox....
Same as it's gone over with everything else they've pulled. "Thank you sir, may I have another?"
Nobody of importance will complain. Nobody who complains will be heard from. Not until the copyright cops bust into a few wrong places and get shot; then we'll hear about how copyright infringers are terrorists, and they'll create some even WORSE laws.
Surely the point of foreign copyright infringement cartels is that they operate outside the US and therefore outside it's jurisdiction, at which point what is the actual purpose of this law?
Amusingly my CAPTCHA is Baseless...
Hey, I've got an idea! How about an arm of the government that cracks down on any form of "interference with corporate profit".
Wow. Think of how many of our citizens we could throw in jail!
-- America, where more money is spent on prisons than education.
I'm sure you'll convince everyone of your position real fast with condescension, question begging, half truths, straw men and ad hominems.
If you have a point to make, perhaps you should try putting forth a cogent argument for it instead of a load of barely-contained rage.
You miss the point, they don't need evidence. All they need is suspicion to seize your property, and good luck ever getting it back.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I can picture it now! We'll call them "firemen" and they'll wear a badge that says "451". I mean, if we're gonna do it, we may as well do it with some style!
Allow me to dispel your insinuations that this department is currently doing the equivalent of what is being proposed.
From their web site ...
Having a department whose job it is to enforce federal statutes on behalf of injured parties is in no way the same as the investigation and enforcement on behalf of large corporate interests.
The presence of the word "civil" in both titles doesn't change the fact that the federal government does not pursue "civil" cases on behalf of companies, and never has. Enforcing the "civil" rights of people is a completely different thing. I suspect you know this, but choose to ignore the distinction.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Agreed, it's back to the Inquisition in many ways. While your public trial may ultimately vindicate you, the amount of grief it's possible to inflict just by laying charges has become substantial. The legal system is supposed to prevent its use as a tool of persecution, but it is used as just that more and more often. Just another example of the two-tiered justice system I criticized in my journal.
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
Pull your collective HEAD out of your collective ASS.
Well, they CAN seize your stuff, but they still have to acquire a WARRENT to do so... They may have a new law to play with, but the courts and the constitution are still obstacles they have to abide.
I actually see this as a good thing, as flawed as the law is and as likely it will be overturned quickly if approved. You see, since there is now an official government branch, the RIAA just became powerless. Their activities can now be considdered illegal and harassing.
The government will do a pretty good job hunting down the worst offenders. They'll go after big time sharing users, people who are sharing so much data it';s easy to trace. As a typical government agency, they'll look for the big wins, not the little guys. It's of no interest to the government to prosecute small cases wqhere the benefit to them does not make financial sense.
Do you hear on the news "today we located and sent summons to 600 minor pot smokers, we considder this a big step in the drug war." ...NO, you hear "we had a big bust today, 4 tons of cocaine!"
These are headlines the government looks for. Finding guys who are so guilty it;s not even going to get to court. Overwhelming government evidence.
If you happen to be on bit torrent, and share a small amount of stuff, the government really won;t be interested in finding you. The reason? If you're found NOT guilty, some agency looses MILLIONS in the counter suit, and the investigators KNOW if that happens, their career ends instantly. The RIAA is gambling on winning and loosing cases, and since they're operating on a thin line of law, simply gathering evidence and submitting civil cases, not invading homes and seizing property, they put the blame on the law enforcement folks who actually do knowck on your door. They're partly immune to counter suits that a government won't be.
When the government seizes goods or equipment, or your car, they're doing so after a long line of clear evidence. You blow a 1.7 in a breath meter, then get your car imponded and you brought to jail, theyn they give you a blood test and independentyly confirm the breath meter's results, pretty much, you;re guilty. There's not a lot of argument for you to get your car back. The cops are following clearly documented and practiced arrest policies, and the chance you'll get off on a technicality is extremely slim (and the few times it's happend, NY did not have to be sued to return the car, it simply released iot from impound). Law suits aginst NY for seized cars have been civil suits over the arrest itself, and usually the weekend you spend in jjail waiting arainment, not for the seizure and loss of use for a few days.
On the flip side, I know a few NY cops, and they've actually LET drunk drivers go free without seizing the car. (usually they encourage them to park the car and walk home, or call for a ride if they can). Why? When the meter blows 0.08 or 0.09, and it;s close enough that it might be contested, the law sais they need to arrest and seize the car, but there's that remote chance the meter could be wrong, and that it might get overturned. So instead, they try to keep people safe, sometuimes even OFFERING A RIDE if it's close enough, but they also have to protect the city itself. If they go around seizing cars and it's getting overturned too often, people loose trust in their government.
That's the balance here. Beyond the trouble of getting a warrent to enter your home and seize your systems on EVIDENCE of illegal activity (there is a burden of proof to overcome here), they actually have to heave reasonable belief they're right and will win. To many innocents being victims and this whole agency comes crashing down.
As I said, I don't think so much this is an issue the government really cares about, or that thy're going to pour millions into, I think this is more in response to negative feedback from the RIAA and MPAA's personal actions, and a way for the government to deal with the issue without weakening IP rights. (sto
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
First of all, they do need evidence. They need enough evidence to meet probable cause to get a judge to sign a warent to enter your home. They DO have a burden of proof to meet, and that IS constitutionally protected. As far as seizure, if the judge OK's seisure, you're also protected under the constitution to a speedy trial. The courts will likely rule pretty quick that they can copy an image of your system for further investigation, but since forensics on a PC can be done in a few days tops, if they can't provide further proof of illegal activity to a court quickly, a lawyer will very quickly have that system released back into your hands (likely with blank hard drives, but if you're not backing up, that's your fault!). If you;re found innocent, provided there was both a burden of proof, and due process, you can't sue the government for loos of use, but if the system was physically damaged (not data lossm, but damage or extended unreasonably loos of use) then you do have a case, nut only for minor compensation.
Honestly though, this is not about creating a govenrment body to do the RIAA's bidding, it;s about creating a government body so that we can make the RIAA stop! individuals and the media alike are causing swells in the voter community regarding the RIAA, and though it's currently a minor issue, it IS an issue. Likely more imnportant is the fact that the RIAA is pissing off large universities, schools that give candidates a HUGE boost with campaign finance, open public forums to speak in, and more. I'm sure the senators want to see this harassmenty of their voter base end as soon as is possible.
Once this agency takes over, the RIAA is rendered virtually powerless. They'll be outside the law and open to direct criminal prosecution for their actions if they continue on their current track.
Equally, this agency might go looking for some big, press worthy targets, but they're not interested in pissing off the same pool of people the RIAA is.
Besides, the RIAA ius a bunch of nut jobs, eager to do anything they can, and paid extremely well for their efforts. If it all falls apart, either way, they all got rich trying. On the government side of the picture, we're talking about career law enforcement salaries here. These guys not only will NOT be rich if they get fired because they got the agency sued, it ends their careers as well. The RIAA guys are businessmen, and can get another job in their field. A cop gets fired, he's going to low budget security work. Not exactly appealing.
These guys, just like the NYC cops who seize the cars of drunk drivers, will overlook questionable cases and only go for the sure wins. They can'ty afford to make mistakes. If they can be absolutely certain you're stealing files, and can convince a judge of the same, then come in and take your system, odds are, you WILL be guilty. It's a big enough expense to prove themselves right, especially since they'll likely never see any real money back from it and putting you in prison only costs more, but LOOSING a case could cost them millions, and the government does NOT take that kind of risk lightly.
They do not need "suspicion" they need to overcome warentable burden of proof. Failure to return property to an innocent is a violation of the constitution, and people who make government wage will be fired if this is an issue on any level. It's called personal accountabiulity, and the RIAA does not currently have that, so it;s a problem that must be resolved.
Many think it might just be easier to outlaw the RIAA's activities, but doing so has too many side effects. 1) since there is no government organization doing the same, it basically gives us all free license to start sharing, since only gross violaters would ever be noticed by the FBI, the only other fallback. 2) it would also limit PIs all over the country, as well as smaller government offeces. We can't stop the RIAA's activitys alone, we have to offer a legal substitute.
This agency may have a completely flawedf desig
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
I just don't see it getting better, but getting worse.
...). I disagree, however, that it is about punishment of misbehaviour or crime. I rather think it is about preparing for a different regime.
Agreed, and another bad thing is that these 'rules' are exported to the (willing) US-colonies (UK etc.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
I agree with much of what you wrote, so I'll concentrate on just the interesting parts or disagreements here.
Oh and I hope you like what those wealthy people like, because only what they like is going to get made. Sometimes you will, most of the time you probably won't.
In this discussion, the behaviour of rich Big Media organisations and rich politicians is being criticised from all over the place. At the same time, the critics seem to be proposing abolishing the primary mechanism through which average people can collaborate to support producing works. Irony, much? :-)
Most people's sense of "fairness" is "take all I can, screw the other guy."
Here, we disagree. I think most people's sense of fairness does mean compensating someone to a reasonable extent for their efforts.
IME, the big objections in copyright debates are usually about the middlemen such as the **AA organisations, who have taken advantage of copyright laws that are in their own interests, while somehow simultaneously avoiding other laws that are designed to constrain pricing in non-competitive markets. The result is that people who are not the artists are selling artistic works at artificially high prices. Consumers see no reason they should pay a middleman who they perceive to be ripping them off, and view copyright infringement via downloads and such as screwing the unfair middleman, and therefore ethical.
Of course, this is a problem with the current implementation of copyright, not with the underlying principle. In previous discussions, we (various Slashdot posters) have suggested a range of alternatives that are faithful to the basic idea of copyright, but would shift the balance way back towards benefiting the artist and the consumer rather than the middleman, leaving the latter to make a profit only if they provide a valuable service to artists and/or consumers in a competitive market. If we moved back in that direction, I don't think most people would consider it fair to rip works at the expense of the people who actually worked hard to make them, and I think the law in this area would deserve a lot more respect generally.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
What else do you expect from Capitalist Democracy though?
Consider:
How can you believe in Capitalism if you don't accept that rich people and companies have the right to give large sums to politicians? Given that they have that right, how can you expect them to do anything other than lobby for their own self-interest?
Under Capitalism there will always be this pressure. In any society economic power is the most important power; whoever controls the means of production (showing my socialist bias, I know :) ) controls the shape of society.
Maybe if we moved to a system of workers co-operatives? If we banned the stock market and made all organisations owned by the workers then the concentration of wealth wouldn't be as severe. I'm not arguing for monolithic socialist/maoist/stanlist monopolies, just the same system we have now with everything owned by workers instead of financial institutions.
I think it'd come closer to the ideal of companies competing in free markets to win over consumers on the basis of better/cheaper products. I doubt it could be worse than the current situation!
Nick
Without proper regulation and oversight, capitalism leads to socialism, but only for the rich and politically connected. Capitalism allows the unfettered accumulation of capital. Capital equals power to change the system, either through economic coercion or manipulation of the legal system, which brings in more capital in a never ending positive feedback loop. The more money you have, the more control you have over other people's lives. We not only accept this basic injustice, we celebrate it as good, just, and moral. It isn't, any more than using any other form of power to screw people over.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Why do you fucking stupid ass people keep voting for republicans and democrats?! WHY? What the fuck do you expect? Nothing is going to change unless we get rid of these people. That means putting in NEW people, not associated with these parties into office.
VOTE for independent candidates, get your ass out there... and do something.
Sitting on slashdot and writing a bitch comment, or an intelligent one... aint going do it folks!
Get the fuck out there.... and get some new people elected. RUN yourself... I dont care, just do something other than vote for a republican or democrat, or anyone else that may have the same mindset, who's only interest it is, is to make money, and rule over you, at the cost of your freedom.
Oh this doesnt effect any of the politicians children who may be torrenting porn, or whatever else... They're above the law. You're not.
You're only option is to write all of tehse fuckers... and threaten them. Tell them "If you support this... you're out of office... You will not get my vote. I and others will make sure that you are not elected another term ever"
Then go VOTE for someone else already....
This wont change. America is a fucking shithole. I hate this country. It is so full of shit. You ever wonder why the rest of the world hates us? Because for years they've seen the bullshit clearly.... Everyone except England of course.... because England is fucking worse than us. And if you remember this little thing called the American Revolutionary War... We fought to rid ourselves of the English. Now a days, we just want to be like them.
FUCK AMERICA. I'm tired of it.
See the thing is that server farms hold all kinds of servers. Your little personal website can be sitting right next to a big company's big important server. So, if they start grabbing equipment left and right, they are going to get a lot of pissed off people, and some of those people are going to have money and lawyers.
The reason why you don't see so many challenges of the warrantless cash seizures is because it is a targeted kind of thing. If the cops pull you over and seize a bunch of your cash, that doesn't affect me if I'm in a car right behind you. Thus it is easy for me not to care. Also, you discover that generally those with money/power aren't affected by this because they don't use cash very much.
Well this is real different. Now there is collateral damage. It's be the same as in the earlier situation if they seized your cash, and then drained my bank account since I happened to be in a car behind you. Now suddenly I'm much more likely to care and to bitch since I wasn't even involved.
So I doubt it'll take too many seizures at datacentres before those with money and power get hit and thus start fighting back.