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."

Comments

Foreign copyright infringement?

[SpiderClan]

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.

Re:Foreign copyright infringement?

[Hyppy]

It's about as foreign as the NSA's recent wiretapping, I'm sure.

Re:Foreign copyright infringement?

[n dot l]

Why should *my* tax dollars be used to boost the profits of *any* corporation?

Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, the **AA's. If anything, they seem to be getting better at propping the big companies up before they collapse. And to answer your question, it's because your government values said corporations more than it values you or your tax dollars. And they value the companies more because a fancy dinner party and sponsorship for the party convention is worth much more than the votes of the small part of the population that both understands and cares about what's going on.

Your tax money at work

[Opportunist]

So, in a nutshell, you now pay for the RIAA to prop up their outdated and failed business model.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

Re:Your tax money at work

[nitehawk214]

What economic system do you prefer to capitalism?

Compared to what we have in the US? I would rather have capitalism.

Re:Your tax money at work

[Artifakt]

Why do you even ask the question? The RIAA, etc, aren't Capitalists - they are using the law to create and extend an artificial monopoly, not relying upon the free market. The poster you are attacking is pointing out that they are not Capitalists, that they will try to spin this as just being how good little Capitalists act, but it will be a lie, and so your post shows you generally fall for the lie and start a squabble with people who actually understand the situation. The RIAA wins because that squabbling undermines the people who would organize against the recording industry's version of State Socialism.

Re:Your tax money at work

[Lostlander]

This isn't capitalism this is corporate welfare. Which is basically a form of command economy called socialism. I'm tired of the government bailing out these large corporations they should be able to die just like smaller corporations. People might be out of jobs for a month or two but they will get jobs in the companies that replace the giant corporation. Assuming the function of the giant corporation is still valid.

Re:Your tax money at work

[houghi]

You start with the idea that money is the goal. For centuries and even now music made by musicians had music as a final goal, not money.

In the past economies have blossomed without the need of copyright.

Also you seem to think that the copyright is there to protect the business. It isn't. It is there to protect the right to copy. Solving the issue is not by not copying things anymore, but by making it legal to do so.

In general: if the majority does something that is illegal, then it is not the people that are wrong, it is the law that is wrong.

Re:Your tax money at work

[Stevecrox]

I think your missing a huge point in their business model. SONY BMG, Universal, etc.. are companies that traditionally trumped up the high recording/production costs in making films/movies. They would spend the required millions to put people on stage they would then contractually and physically have the ability to limit supply and so artificially increase the value of their product.

The problem is that technology has changed where you needed a $1 million dollar recording studio twenty years ago we can now use a $2000 PC and importantly you get the same quality of music out of it. The advent of the internet means it is now relatively cheap to get your message out. I believe Sandi Thom showed just how easy it was to gain a large audience through the internet. On top of this technology has made copying intellectual property very cheap (it costs around 10p to copy a DVD.)

Their business model isnâ(TM)t making things and selling them (such a description covers every single business model I can think of.) Their business model is being a middle man in the access to music. They were able to control the supply of music to the masses and in doing so make money from it. Technology has meant they have lost the ability to control that, rather than update their business model and try adding value to their product they continually attack their customer base and work to devalue their business model (paper cd cases, drm, etc..)

Re:Your tax money at work

[SmokeyTheBalrog]

No one is saying to do away with Capitalism. They are saying to reduce Corporatism.

Where large corporations put up large artificial barriers to anyone wishing to compete with them or even modify their products to fit one's lifestyle . Or where they get to enact laws that are clearly in their interest and ignore those that are not.

Re:Your tax money at work

[Opportunist]

The business model isn't outdated because it relies on laws to be profitable. As you point out, many businesses do that. "Selling" music isn't outdated. What's outdated is the model of distribution. Who needs a studio to record or distribute his music? I don't.

The refusal, of artists and customrs alike, of big studios and their business model comes from years of feeling ripped off. We have a global market but I can't buy CDs from US bands that aren't distributed in Europe, and neither can I buy US shows on DVD when they appear on DVD in the US. Because of artificial boundaries and territory protection. When the CD emerged, we were told the CDs are hellish expensive because it's a new technology and they will become cheaper when the sales pick up, we gotta wait 'til records disappear and CDs become the medium of choice. Well, records disappeared, CDs became the only medium and they got more expensive.

Instead we got some insane protection mechanisms that broke any standard in the (red) book and the silver discs (they are NOT CDs, I don't want to get sued by Phillips for using their trademarked name "compact disc" for these abominations) didn't play in some players. Could we return those faulty discs? No, we were told to get a new player. If we weren't accused of attempted copyright infringment by returning the disc after allegedly copying it.

Sales plummeted. If you ask me, quite logically so. I don't buy something when I can neither be sure that it works nor be able to return the item if it doesn't. Well, "plummet" is maybe the wrong term. Despite a global decline in economy and many companies in the red, the music industry still went on strong in the black, yet they cried about dwindling sales and of course those pesky pirates are to blame. Not a copy protection that alienates users and cranking out shovelware music nobody wanted to listen to.

Certainly, people copied songs. Some copied entire libraries and looking back at the years around the 2000, it was out of hands. But why did it come to that? It's not like people are hard wired to take stuff without paying. If anything, we've been told from birth that taking anything requires you to buy it. People also usually have moral problems with stealing. So maybe you can explain why they didn't when they copied music?

Today, though, we have two fronts colliding. And neither side is willing to give an inch or only a fraction thereof. A customer is treated like a criminal, while the studios are seen as big, greedy, law-buying monoliths that don't give a rat's ass about their customers. Neither side would willingly offer the other even so much as a glass of water if they should be drowning.

The problem is, though, you can't force anyone to buy. If you want me to buy something, you have to offer me something I want. I don't want music on silver discs that don't play in my hardware. I don't want music on my computer that plays only on this machine and only as long as you allow me to. I don't want DVDs where I can't ignore the ads. I don't want BluRay discs that "fuse" with my player and don't allow me to play them in a different one. I don't want to wait to see a movie that has already been available for months in some other country and could easily be sold here.

That's what I meant when I said outdated. You cannot enforce something against your customers. Your customer sees that it is possible to offer him music without restriction, to offer him movies that give him the movie only and not some unskippable ads and that plays wherever he wants, and he gets it as soon as it is out. Of course people will start looking for ways to get rid of those limitations and they will find them. That they don't have to pay money for it is maybe an added bonus, but usually not the deciding factor.

If you want to survive "legally", without resorting to actually waging a war against your customers, which will hurt you in the long run more than them, you have to offer what your customer wants. Only then he will buy.

Re:Your tax money at work

[damasterwc]

You probably mean that would rather have a "fair market economy" where everybody plays by the rules. You need a strong government to enforce rules because the big boys don't play fair. The end result of pure capitalism is the same as communism and fascism. You get one big monopoly merged with the government.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Seizures?

[mandelbr0t]

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.