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So, in a nutshell, you now pay for the RIAA to prop up their outdated and failed business model.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
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.
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 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
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