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?

[deniable]

Team America: World Copyright Police. (Puppets of the RIAA/MPAA, how fitting.)

Re:Foreign copyright infringement?

[Sabathius]

Great.

We already have the largest prison population of any country on earth. We need more government agencies to think of more ways to put more of our citizens in prison?

How about no.

Re:Foreign copyright infringement?

[bryce4president]

This is a civil matter. No one is going to jail. Nice flaimbait post however.

Re:Foreign copyright infringement?

[TechForensics]

Oh America. We are one step closer...

We no longer live under a system of capitalism. American capitalism has become corporatism.

Re:Foreign copyright infringement?

[PunkOfLinux]

It's not that we should be worried about... it's this utter bullshit of tax payer dollars investigating civil matters. If the RIAA wants to fucking sue, they can do it with their own fucking money, worthless bastards. Why should *my* tax dollars be used to boost the profits of *any* corporation?

And yes, there's a difference between incentive and handout.

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.

Re:Foreign copyright infringement?

[Wildclaw]

Exactly. Instead they get bankrupted. Much cheaper for the state. Why put people in expensive jails when you can ruin them without putting them in jail.

Re:Foreign copyright infringement?

[Abcd1234]

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.

Re:Foreign copyright infringement?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

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.

If that was the case they would be propping up the home owners who are the ones with the ridiculous debts, not the loan sharks. The buddies of the kleptocratic oligarchs in the government are quite content if 90% of the "little" people lose their houses and go bankrupt thus causing the very depression we are supposedly being "protected" against, but the corporation?!! Never!!!

Note that bailing out the loan shark does nothing whatsoever for the economy as the home-"owners" will still go under in massive numbers and thus their purchasing power will be reduced to near zero, not to mention all kinds of fun effects on the prices of the piles of sticks and cardboard called "homes" in the US. But it does help billionaire investors, their investment corporations and CEO buddies of the politicos to get out before its too late ... which is the entire objective of the exercise.

Re:Foreign copyright infringement?

[Abcd1234]

Note that bailing out the loan shark does nothing whatsoever for the economy as the home-"owners" will still go under in massive numbers and thus their purchasing power will be reduced to near zero

How wrong you are. If you don't backstop the investors, all that delicious foreign capital the US has become addicted to would evaporate overnight as they went running for the hills. And given the US economy has been running on credit for, what, 20 or 30 years? means that the US economy would basically grind to a halt if that happened.

Incidentally, I agree, they absolutely need to provide some sort of relief to homeowners (hence rumours that the fed might ask F&F to halt foreclosures for 90 days... although that's just putting a finger in the dam), but there's no way they can afford to prop up every failing mortgage that's out there.

Re:Foreign copyright infringement?

[iminplaya]

Yes, by keeping it "civil" they can make a nice end run around the 4th. Just like RICO. Very astute.

Re:Foreign copyright infringement?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

How wrong you are. If you don't backstop the investors, all that delicious foreign capital the US has become addicted to would evaporate overnight as they went running for the hills. And given the US economy has been running on credit for, what, 20 or 30 years? means that the US economy would basically grind to a halt if that happened.

This of course is the classic "argument" against doing anything at all for anybody else other then the "investor" (read: aristocracy) class. Inhuman conditions in the workplace? Too bad, cannot regulate because it would make poor investors run to Bangladesh. Minimum wage? No way, poor investors are already packing their bags. Taxes? Why only a place in which you do not pay taxes on capital gains can have "investors" because that's where they all run. Etc and so on and on and on ad nauseum.

The end result of course being a classical case of a "race to the bottom" in which nations compete on how low will they prostrate themselves before the "investors", to the point that they are now pretty much supplying their own vasoline to make the "investor's" back entry easier.

The truth unfortunately is that when you build your entire economy based upon good graces of thieves and loan sharks, there will come a time when the effects of what you have done catch up with you. Postponing it will only make the final reckoning more painful. And no, there is no "fixing" this mess save for a fundamental overhaul of the entire delusion of "global free market" that the Americans have so painstakingly been bamboozled into believing over the last 50-year plus years, along with its attendant delusions of credit-financed economy and out-of-control size of corporations.

Re:Foreign copyright infringement?

[Abcd1234]

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.

Re:Foreign copyright infringement?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

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.

Except of course this action does nothing whatsoever for the economy. Spouting such meaningless platitudes is a hallmark of an economic demagogue.

So let me break it down, so that the emptiness of all that rhetoric of yours can be exposed to some daylight.

You have a group of individuals "HO", in the market for some already overpriced piles of sticks which provide them with protection from rain and snow, but come with a host of obligations and costs which make them only moderately economically viable in relation to the typical income of that HO group.

Enter group "IB" who seeks to steal everybody's money. They normally attempt to use moneys of another group "I" who is essentially a multi-billionaire club with a large number of some goofy "wannabes" attached who are allowed to lose all their money in the effort to "belong", to which silly belief they are encouraged by the multi-billionaires who seek to fleece them out of what miserable funds these goofuses still possess. Of course 99% of the assets in that club already belongs to the 1% who are the billionaires and the tens of thousands of idiots (i.e. the remaining 99%) who think themselves to be in the group have the remaining 1% amongst themselves. Which of course does not stop them from thinking themselves as being "I" and braying loudly about it, followed by doing everything in their power to protect the billionaires because they feel themselves always "on the cusp" of becoming such themselves. Any minute now.

The "IB" thieves come up with a giant con: to get the "HO" turkeys to start fighting amongst themselves over "purchasing" the piles of sticks, thus increasing the "value" (snicker) of these worthless things and then to use this "increased" value as a "collateral" for further "loans" to be used to increase the tempo of the "HO" squabble, all the way skimming a percentage of the monetary value of all these "transactions" off the top. They enlist the help of the billionaires to get the thing started.

And it works beautifully: the "HO" squabble causing the "value" of the piles of sticks to skyrocket, that "value" is then used as "collateral" to issue further "loans" and the cycle repeats itself.

Of course at certain point the "HO" idiots run out of their real (as opposed to "invested" in the piles of sticks) money. So they attempt to sell these "valuable" possessions. At which point they discover that if enough of them do so, the whole charade collapses. Which makes a guy named Ponzi laugh out of his grave.

Things start to look grim. The "IB" crooks already got their money (which they've been stashing abroad knowing all the way that the whole thing was a con). The "I" crooks too never stood to lose anything as their real money was only used to get the thing going and constituted a tiny fraction of the "value" of the con at its peak and was long since withdrawn (they of course were also in on the con) and whatever could be managed to be siphoned out was pure gain. The "HO" marks stand to lose everything as the lion share of the "value" of their "assets" is pure fantasy and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

Enter the Knight on the White Horse, the Government of Dunces. The trumpets blare and the pages wave colorful standards. The rescue is here! And so the Knight takes the gold of the "HO" turkeys he collected over the years from them as well as that of many, many others who were previously not involved in this fiasco and gives that to .... the "IB" thieves. Who naturally split the loot with their billionaire "I" partners and roll laughing all the way to their bank in Dubai.

And what is the final tally? The "HO" idiots are still screwed. The value of their "assets" will still fall l

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

[easyTree]

I kinda fail to see the public interest. Because that's what tax money should be spent on.

I think you're being a little unfair. Considering the amount of bribe-money that's changed hands, they're entitled to a few laws which serve only them and allow them to ride roughshod over the public interest. Geez. Stop being so selfish!

Re:Your tax money at work

[ShieldW0lf]

Because, collectively, you all got blinded by greed and put too much faith in the shell game that is economics. In the name of this shell game, you stood by and allowed your government to transform every piece of common wealth into someone elses private property. Now, they own everything and they run everything in an arbitrary fashion, and they're trying to expand this dominion over the entire globe.

You talk about "paying for" these people, what a joke. You have no choices anymore. Look at the housing market. Years of construction, millions of people paying every month for years, and with the stroke of a pen, money is printed, currency is devalued, public wealth is transferred to ensure all those defaulted loans are covered. The white collar crooks get the loan money repaid by the government and more importantly, by the time the money becomes utterly devalued, they'll own the deeds for half the country.

If you want to understand what's going on around you, I'd suggest you start reading up about the Great Depression.

Re:Your tax money at work

[squiggleslash]

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

Nope. You pay because the RIAA's own attempts to enforce copyright law have stalled, largely because armies of geeks have been trying to find ways of ensuring people can violate copyright without actually enough evidence existing to lead to successful trials.

The RIAA itself doesn't have a business model that's relevant to this discussion (any more than the MPAA, AAA, NRA, or any other organization that plays a representative role has), but if you're referring to the music industry's general model of "selling copies of things people want", I'm not really sure how the model is "outdated" or "failed". Because it requires copyright law to enforce it? And? How many businesses do you think survive without any laws at all to ensure people play fair and don't use the fruits of their labors without paying towards the costs? If your employer suddenly started withholding all your paychecks, and you found that your attempts to enforce the law against your employer were fruitless because he or she knew thousands of loopholes, and you found everyone else was in the same boat, do you think it'd be fair for everyone to turn around and tell you your "Employee business model" is "outdated and failed"?

We could have avoided this. There'd be no reason for "copyright cops" if people bought the content they wanted and were prepared to pay for, and steered clear of content they didn't want to pay for. The fact geeks went over the top to create mechanisms to by-pass paying doesn't mean copyright cops are unneeded. It means a bunch of people acted anti-socially, and now we all have to suffer through higher taxes and a greater risk of being caught in the dragnets.

Thanks a lot Ray Beckerman. Thanks a lot Shawn Fanning. So you sowed, so shall we have to reap.

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

[zappepcs]

I have no mod points.. but I hope someone mods you insightful... well done

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

[ShieldW0lf]

I love people like this...saying "you all" to the people who don't, and didn't, approve of it. You know, we can vote and write letters all we want, the people getting the kickbacks don't give a shit.

Yeah, you write letters. But when circumstances are such that citizens of other nations would be engaged in meaningful revolution, you either steal televisions from each other or hide, waiting for your masters to reassert control. You're a bunch of cowards.

Just once, I'd like to read about a young person losing the plot and shooting white collar criminals, or people who manufacture weapons of mass destruction, or corrupt political figures instead of shooting up their classmates. Never happens though. But keep writing letters...

Re:Your tax money at work

[KDR_11k]

A revolution only installs a new dictator. It's pointless.

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

[Spatial]

There'd be no reason for "copyright cops"

Didn't they already tell us that they had record-breaking profits for the last few years?

What exactly is the reason? They don't seem to be losing money. As far as I can tell they have neither cause to ask for special protection, nor a failed business model.

Re:Your tax money at work

[Chyeld]

On the reverse side, people would have a far easier time justifying to themselves 'paying' for stuff if the people the RIAA represent didn't go out of their way to craft the most one sided deals possible when offering their wares.

There would far fewer 'pirates' in this world if we didn't have things like DRM preventing us from using what we've bought the way we want to. If we didn't have laws like the DMCA attempting to prevent us from fixing things so we could. If our law makers hadn't allowed themselves to be bribed into extending copyrights effectively to infinity.

And yes, if my employer suddenly started stiffing me and I couldn't find a way to make them pay, I think it'd be justified for everyone I knew to bop me upside the head and say "Idiot! Why are you still working there?"

Re:Your tax money at work

[Opportunist]

I don't know what the economy system we're currently in should be called (the economic side of fascism comes close), but it certainly isn't capitalism.

In a capitalist system, suppliers invent, streamline their production methods and improve their products to compete against each other in the attempt to make the customer choose them over their competitors. The customers in turn, collectively decide which product suits their needs best and buys this one, thus giving the supplier that matches their needs best the upper hand. Suppliers that supply what is in demand will thrive, those that supply what isn't, perish.

You can't tell me that THIS system is currently in place, can you?

Re:Your tax money at work

[ShieldW0lf]

Give me a break, and go get an education. Just try not to shoot anyone in the meantime.

Right... put myself in debt to a corrupt banking system, so I can waste a few years abasing myself to people I don't respect, so I can be specialized further away from the capacity to care for myself and indoctrinated into a system that thinks of me as a cross between a cog and a steer. That will really fix things.

Re:Your tax money at work

[Jewfro_Macabbi]

Society defines what it considers socially acceptable behavior. In this context it appears a majority of society feel downloading content regardless of copyright/intellectual property law is acceptable. Such large numbers engage in the act industry itself can't handle attempting to police it. Therefor it is "socially acceptable" behavior.

"How many businesses do you think survive without any laws at all to ensure people play fair and don't use the fruits of their labors without paying towards the costs?"

I don't care. I care about my rights to privacy. I care about my tax dollars being wasted to protect outmoded business models while critical infrastructure is in shambles. I care about my fellow citizens being harassed by corporate interests.
Functioning, profit earning markets require neither copyright nor intellectual property. The goods still have to be manufactured even if no one owns that right exclusively. The original copyright agreement gave the inventor a short term exclusivity (ten years then which should equate to about one year now) so they could be first to market. It did not grant perpetual ownership nor ownership of the idea itself. Corporations have repeatedly bribed our government into extending and modifying the terms of that societal contract in their favor. People now ignore the contract, and are wholly justified in doing so.

Re:Your tax money at work

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

So tell us: what proportions of the population of your country do you think:

• believe copyright to be unethical and copy knowing they are breaking a law they consider unjust?
• don't object to copyright in principle but copy in the expectation that they will not get caught?
• don't understand copyright and copy without knowing they are doing anything wrong?
• don't object to copyright in principle and don't deliberately infringe it?

Slashdot is not exactly a representative forum on this subject, and across the population as a whole, I suspect the answers are not what you think they are.

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

[Hyppy]

Bingo. The U.S. has turned into a corporate oligarchy.

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

[Stanislav_J]

Didn't they already tell us that they had record-breaking profits for the last few years?.....They don't seem to be losing money.

You don't understand....it doesn't matter that they are still making a profit. It doesn't even matter that they are still making a large, record-setting profit. They will argue that they are losing money because their profit could be oh, so much higher if it weren't for those meddling pirates and their dog. The difference between what they actually made and what they think they should have made, theoretically, without "freeloaders" downloading and sharing their product, is the "loss" that they claim to have suffered.

Remember.....in America (especially at the corporate level), there is no such thing as making "enough" money -- it's never "enough."

Re:Your tax money at work

[Opportunist]

Capitalism is a great economy system, we just have to return to it.

Capitalism means that the customer decides what is built. Indirectly, but he does. By buying the item that fits his needs the most. When you think the goods that are offered aren't what people want, open a business and produce what they want. They will abandon their old ways and they will buy your goods instead. The other companies would have to give them what they want, too, or lose business.

Today, though, we do not live in this system anymore. Take movie players (DVD, BluRay, whatever). Does any of those allow you to copy your discs? No. Would you like to? Sure. Would you buy one that allows you to copy your discs? Of course! But you must not build a BluRay player that allows that. If you do, you don't get the right to use the BluRay "seal of approval". Creating your own format for your player doesn't help either, since no content provider would offer content for your player.

The customer cannot choose what he wants. It is simply not offered.

And you get that a lot. This is not capitalism.

Re:Your tax money at work

[Opportunist]

Many don't even know that what they do is breaking the law. Even more would be really surprised to learn that what they have been doing for ages has become illegal suddenly.

Copyright changed a fair lot in the last decade. What used to be legal and was actually common practice for decades is now a big nono. I'm fairly sure if people did realize, the outcry would be quite noticable. Take someone who uses some tool to break copy protection on a movie or CD to make a copy for a friend, just like he did with video and audio tapes for years. With the difference that he didn't have to break any kind of protection, but he doesn't even notice this either. He just knows that this program can copy the DVD while the other one cannot. So he uses the program that can. Legality? I guess he just thinks that the program simply can't do it for some odd reason, or that he can't figure out how to make it work. That one can, so he uses that one. Period.

Re:Your tax money at work

[bkr1_2k]

So, can I ask, how many revolutions you've actually been a part of, shieldwolf? Seriously, it's easy to sit back and say "I wouldn't stand for that" but the simple fact is, you can only say that if you actually live somewhere that has it better than we here in the USA have.

I spend a lot of my time volunteering and trying to change those around me through education and I still don't get anywhere. I have said, when the time comes, I will resort to true revolution, but honestly, that time hasn't come. We have a system that is clearly broken, but violence isn't going to fix it unless you kill everyone who has ever had any interest in power. You can't just take out one or two people, you have to take out millions. That's simply not realistic if you expect to be considered a "good guy" at the end of it all. Revolutions have a time and place, but the fact is, in the USA, this is not the time. I can see it being the time in the next generation, possibly two, but not now. Things just aren't that bad, generally speaking. People still have jobs (mostly) and can still feed themselves. Despite what it seems like here on slashdot, people don't fear their government, and don't think there's any reason to fear their government. That may be the fact that we are "fat and lazy" or it may be that there truly is no reason to fear, yet. We still have opportunities to change things. Economics is cyclic, so expecting some big revolution based upon a downturn such as we have right now is just unrealistic. It hasn't truly hurt that many people. Yes it has affected most of us, but it hasn't put enough of us in bread lines to cause true panic, and it's not likely to do so.

As for education, it doesn't require going into debt or being "indoctrinated". Your lack of respect for people who can teach you things speaks volumes, though. Yes you may be smarter than they are, but that doesn't make them any less worthy of respect. Sure there are some professors and "educators" who aren't worthy of respect but those truly aren't the norm.

Re:Your tax money at work

[dwandy]

I believe there is a measurable %age of the population that equates "right" == "legal" and "illegal" == "wrong". And they equate this without question. There is clearly no point in asking any of these people your questions.
I believe further that of the remaining population the overwhelming majority have never done any serious research into copyright. These people will largely make up their mind based on what has been 'sold' to them over the years. There has been aggressive marketing from various Copyright Industries (software, music, movies etc) to convince people that without copyright, they will cease to produce, and we will return to a dark age of culture. There is (again, though possibly less clearly) no point in asking any of these people your questions.

Until such time as people have researched every single issue (copyright is just one issue people need to make decisions about) we will always be in a situation where people accept whatever they're told. And since I don't ever foresee a day when we all become experts in every subject we will always be at the whim of those that are strong and have an agenda.

I don't recall the source, but a quote I like on this is something to the affect of "If you're explaining, you're losing" ... and copyright makes "common sense", so it will always be a losing battle for those opposed to it, and an easy battle for those monopolies that abuse us with it.

Re:Your tax money at work

[Opportunist]

And if the function is no longer valid, they should die.

Businesses that serve nobody but themselves have to die. To survive, they have to do business, contribute to the exchange of goods and services and generally keep money in circulation. If they don't, they're leeching from the rest of the economy and are, essentially, hurting the economy.

Other companies that do contribute to the economy will take their place, so don't worry about the jobs. Few business models go without leaving a spot for someone to take. It might require a change in business practices, it might require a change in product, but over time something new will fill the empty slot.

Re:Your tax money at work

[Clovis42]

"don't object to copyright in principle but copy in the expectation that they will not get caught?"

I guess some 50% to 70%.

"don't understand copyright and copy without knowing they are doing anything wrong?"

There is some other 25% to 45%.

I'd say the latter is the big category. Like 80%+ of people don't fully understand copyright. Most people are under the delusion that everything is ok if you don't make money. The idea that making a mixtape is illegal is shocking to most people. In fact, you can hardly make them believe it if you try.

I was at a get together and someone brought a cornhole set (wiki it yourself, I'm lazy). They had painted pictures of characters from Pixar movies on it. I pointed out to my wife that that was a copyright (and trademark) infringement, and that they could get sued for a hefty amount of money. She didn't believe me. She would only believe that it would be illegal if they sold them.

I hate a system where laws are selectively enforced. You never know when the RIAA/MPAA is going to pick you to get punished. If the laws were strictly enforced people would realize how heinous they are.

Re:Your tax money at work

[Kelbear]

We've moved on from Capitalism to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_Acquisition

Re:Your tax money at work

[Firehed]

An interesting standpoint the issue, and certainly "devil's advocate" by Slashdot standards.

The problem with the RIAA's approach to business, at least in my eyes, is that their business model is built around having a monopoly on a product. By being the sole distributor of a product, they can charge whatever they want. Now of course with music as an elastic good (as compared to, say, gasoline, home heating oil, water, food, etc) there's still a hint of free market in place.

Legal or not, though, piracy has become a competitor in a once-monopolized market. This obviously induces a panic at the RIAA's end, as it's hard to compete with free (not impossible by any means, but traditional business models WILL fail). When there had previously been only one option to get music or the only choice was that of cassette or CD, there are now a plethora of formats, bitrates, levels of compatibility, and any number of other things that come with digital content. More significantly, there's no longer necessarily a difference between what you want and what you can get.

I'll back you up on saying that Shawn Fanning as almost certainly just a cheap bastard who wanted free music. Most college-age people are. But I'd also argue that he inadvertently reintroduced music to the free market. While Napster was nothing more than illegal file-sharing, it was the first step towards creating a not-completely-monopolized market. Sites like AllOfMP3 attempted to jump in and legitimize cheap music. Not the best example since I don't think anyone knows whether royalties actually went to the artists, but for the sake of argument assume they did. Certainly iTunes, Amazon MP3, Rhapsody, and the like are totally legal. More interesting are the indie music sites like Amie St that use sales rates and such to dynamically adjust pricing which is pretty much the definition of the free market at work.

Most people want to see content creators rewarded for good work. They just don't want to deal with stupid shit in order to see it happen. If the decision is between a $14 CD and grabbing it from TPB for free, I'm going to have to REALLY like the artist to justify that price as I don't think music is worth that much. But charge five bucks and they've got my money. Charge a buck an album and I'll buy music at random rather than download at random. Lower margins, higher volume - it probably works out nearly the same for album sales, but with a far greater market saturation, which artists WANT since they make all the real money on concerts and merchandise, etc.

Some people will never pay, and for the most part they're not worth your time (unless you're a multi-billion dollar cartel of lawyers who can buy laws as needed...). But when you provide good value, there's hardly any need for legal backing.

Just as a data point, I have bought all of the music that I listen to on a regular basis (I grab a CD from Amazon once it's available at ten bucks since I like to have a hard copy around), but 100% of it was pirated first. Most of the other stuff in my music library has a play count of 2 or lower. But had it been sufficiently cheap, I'd have bought it. At ten bucks for an album or a buck a song, I think about it. At AllOfMP3-level prices, it's an automatic buy, if for no other reason than the download from a legit service is always faster than hitting the torrents.

So long story short, we've told them exactly what we want and what we're willing to pay. The fact that they won't use that information accordingly and stick with their old pricing and sue people who act otherwise is why we claim they've got an outdated business model. Are they in the legal right doing it that way? For the most part, but that doesn't stop them from being a bunch of outdated douche bags that won't listen to their would-be customers.

Re:Your tax money at work

[DinDaddy]

Sure. Observe - In a capitalist system, suppliers (Congress) invent, streamline their production methods (legislation made to order, in fact copied verbatim from the customer's order) and improve their products to compete against each other in the attempt to make the customer choose them over their competitors. The customers (corporations) in turn, collectively decide which product suits their needs best and buys this one, thus giving the supplier that matches their needs best the upper hand. Suppliers that supply what is in demand will thrive, those that supply what isn't, perish. And to top it off, it even occurs in the Capital, er, Capitol. OK so the spelling is off.

Re:Your tax money at work

[orasio]

I don't really understand that part of capitalism.

If free market is supposed to regulate everything, why shouldn't it buy laws and police?
Any interventionism is supposed to harm the good effects expected from free market.

In my personal opinion, capitalism, if it gives enough freedom to the corporations, can only lead to this kind of situation, because money tends to lump together, and everything can be bought by money. Adding 2 + 2, _everything_ can be bought by money, including laws and police, even against previous laws. You just need a large enough amount of money. In _my_ opinion, the only way to prevent that is to sacrifice corporations freedom to ensure the freedom of the individuals.

Aside from that, I don't get why people in the US call "Socialist" anything they dislike regarding politics, either.
Socialism does not like corporations, period.
For a socialist, state monopolies are good, cooperatives are good, and not much else.

Please elaborate why you think the "intellectual property" concept is compatible with socialism.

I don't think it does, because it grants private monopolies, with the word "private" being the key. Private is not a good word in socialism, collective or state managed, good, private, bad.

Anyhow, would you explain so I learn something?

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.

Re:Your tax money at work

[dkleinsc]

Which is basically a form of command economy called socialism.

No it isn't: It's a form of command economy called fascism.

Re:Your tax money at work

[Abcd1234]

This isn't capitalism this is corporate welfare. Which is basically a form of command economy called socialism.

No, it's called fascism. Honestly, the least you could do is get your political systems right.

And believe it or not, most of the western world operates under some form of socialism... and they seem to be doing a lot better. Interesting, that...

Re:Your tax money at work

[Wildclaw]

Stop asking difficult questions. Next you will be asking why the freedom loving libertarians want to remove all parts of goverment except the two that are about removing freedom (police, army).

Or why communists keep dreaming about the day when there are no more scarcity, claiming that it is near, when it is obvious looking at the world that more and more resources are in scarce supply due to an increasing amount of people wanting to increase their living standards.

Aside from that, I don't get why people in the US call "Socialist" anything they dislike regarding politics, either.

Another good question.

it's more than likely

[DragonTHC]

This is the straw that broke the camel's back. I am going to wait until the copyreich brownshirts raid the very first webhost and seize a whole server farm. We'll see how well this goes over when a few thousand customers sue the US government for illegal seizure.

This is so far from being common sense. I can only wonder what senators have been smoking.

Re:it's more than likely

[Anonymous Coward]

I can only wonder what senators have been smoking.

I'm guessing rolled up $100 bills.

Re:it's more than likely

[russotto]

This is the straw that broke the camel's back. I am going to wait until the copyreich brownshirts raid the very first webhost and seize a whole server farm. We'll see how well this goes over when a few thousand customers sue the US government for illegal seizure.

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.

Minor correction

[qwertphobia]

...it's entirely likely that only innocent people will be harmed by this law.

There, I fixed it.

Let your Senators know

[Jane Q. Public]

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.

Re:Let your Senators know

[betterunixthanunix]

What I find excruciating about this is that the 4 senators who voted against the bill were all Republicans. It just goes to show why, in general, I support third party candidates.

On an unrelated (sort of) note, somebody at my university received a notice that they were engaged in copyright infringement, came to the computer center and asked what they had done -- they didn't even know what it meant to download music or movies. Or so they claimed.

Re:Let your Senators know

[Dog-Cow]

The DMCA was a voice vote. The very idea of a voice vote assures a lack of accountability, which is exactly what politicians want. Accountability is something which is anathema to most Americans.

You hear the laughter?

[Gandalf_the_Beardy]

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.

In other news...

[Thelasko]

The Chicago Cubs won over the St. Louis Cardinals 3 to 2.
[knock knock]
Hang on, someone is at the door.
Who is it?
The Copyright Cops
What's this about?
Descriptions of games are copyright of Major League Baseball. I'm afraid you'll have to come with us.

I can't wait...

[inject_hotmail.com]

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.

Re:government vs provate industry

[gstoddart]

However, private industry doesn't write laws (at least without congress voting on it!) or have the ability to seize your property, strip your liberties, or throw you in jail.

Well, that's scary is that, if this passes, the DoJ becomes the enforcement arm for private industry.

How is it at all rational that the DoJ should be pursuing civil matters on behalf of private companies? I mean, are they going to start being the investigative arm and replace Media Sentry and me the ones to be sending subpoenas to universities and then prosecute them? Why does this industry group get their own publicly funded enforcement agency?

This sounds like a really bad turning point for justice in America. Welcome to the distopian future kiddies!

Cheers

Of course its gonna be criminal...

[3seas]

... 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....

Re:More flaimbait posts.

[gstoddart]

Hey, look, yet another biased ignorant post submitted by "I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property" and posted by kdawson.

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

As a result the following information is illegal..

[Lumpy]

Firstly, any and all your home computers, if you use bittorrent or download music you need to change your habits. Get a USB hard drive and a live CD to run your computer when you are in EVIL PIRATE MODE. if the live CD you use allows the use of truecrypt on the USB drive, I highly recommend it. If it is found you need plausible deniability. I had hacker friends that hid their USB drive inside a belkin UPS under their desk. nobody questions a UPS with a USB cable out of it, Hiding it in plain sight like that will help deter and distract the invading police during their search.

This way you can hide your usb drive with all the evidence and your regular home PC is pristene and clean with no evidence to condemn you.

Works great, leaves no evidence except that which is on your USB drive. You need to start using habits like the Jews had to use in WWII Germany.. take your drive and hide it well when not in use as you will never know when your home will be raided by the Secret IP police. you need to live a double life, and make sure you have good hiding places for your contraband. also be secret, never brag or tell others about your stash as they may be agents of the IP Police... (Bet you money that in a couple of years they will start a "rat on your parents/neighbors/friends" blitz to encourage people to turn in their neighbors.

Re:Let me get this straigt.

[tepples]

(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.

Senate Judiciary Committee Members

[Attila Dimedici]

Anybody else notice that one of the members on this committee is Joe Biden, Senator from Delaware and VP nominee of the Democratic Party.

Re:Senate Judiciary Committee Members

[megamerican]

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s3325/show
Sponsor
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT]

Co-Sponsors:
and 7 Co-Sponsors
Sen. B. Evan Bayh [D, IN]
Sen. Benjamin Cardin [D, MD]
Sen. John Cornyn [R, TX]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D, CA]
Sen. Arlen Specter [R, PA]
Sen. George Voinovich [R, OH]
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D, RI]

I can't find who in the committee voted for it or against it. It passed committee 14 - 4.

Members on the committee:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/members.cfm

Committee Members
Patrick J. Leahy
Chairman, D-Vermont

Edward M. Kennedy
D-Massachusetts

  Arlen Specter
Ranking Member, R-Pennsylvania

Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
D-Delaware

Orrin G. Hatch
R-Utah

Herb Kohl
D-Wisconsin

  Charles E. Grassley
R-Iowa

Dianne Feinstein
D-California

  Jon Kyl
R-Arizona

Russell D. Feingold
D-Wisconsin

  Jeff Sessions
R-Alabama

Charles E. Schumer
D-New York

  Lindsey Graham
R-South Carolina

Richard J. Durbin
D-Illinois

  John Cornyn
R-Texas
Biography

Benjamin L. Cardin
D-Maryland

Sam Brownback
R-Kansas

Sheldon Whitehouse
D-Rhode Island

  Tom Coburn
R-Oklahoma

Re:Senate Judiciary Committee Members

[danzona]

The Judiciary Committee voted to pass the bill 14-4 Thursday; voting "no" were Senators John Kyl of Arizona, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Sam Brownback of Kansas, and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, all Republicans. Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, was absent for the vote.

Re:Senate Judiciary Committee Members

[geekoid]

Where did you find that information?

Profit Police...

[Sabathius]

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.

Re:Seizures?

[clam666]

It's just another in a long line of laws that America has created where seizing private property is the response.

Before you just, you know, paid a fine, went to jail, and recovered property was returned to the owners when some crime was committed. Now the myriad of crimes have punishments that cover:

1. Any property that "may" have been used in the crime.
2. Any property that may have been purchased due to the crime unless you can magically prove that THESE dollar bills bought that but THOSE dollar bills didn't.
3. Any other property, which the government can legally seize, and you have to spend years fighting to get it back.

I doubt this is the America that people envisioned hundreds of years ago, but what really disturbs me is that I don't think this was the kind of America when I was a kid. It is actually really bothering me these days.

The amount of growing government power to just seize anyone and everything for any amount of time with massive legal hassles to get it or you out of seizure is insane. The concept of government punishment is growing far beyond the crime (share 1000 mp3s with your friends for crap music you would never have bought in the first place) to destroying and shattering peoples live forever.

The laws are being created to circumvent the judicial system. It used to be that the police could be ignored in many cases, because arresting someone really means very little, it was the prosecution that mattered. You might spend a bit of time in jail pre-trial, but prosecution was something you could avoid with the right lawyers.

Realizing this, the laws are being set up now, so the punishment isn't just some "jail time", now you have to spend years recovering even your basic possessions for the laws which now are designed to benefit the agencies itself. Whether prosecuted or not, getting your property back is a very very difficult task.

I just don't see it getting better, but getting worse. Mix laws where people and property can be taken without recourse with the wrong executive body governing the application of those laws and there will be some real problems coming.

But hey, at least I know that when I write some music and sign a song I'll have royalty protection for my music label and I'll get my 5 cents on the dollar.

It's just a committee vote

[Reality Master 201]

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.

Re:I don't think part of that will stand in court

[Sponge Bath]

A closer analogy would be seizing all businesses in an office building because one of the businesses was engaged in alleged illegal activity. Your guilty because you rent facilities from the same provider as the target of the government action.

Re:Let me get this straigt.

[DisKurzion]

(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.

Re:Let me get this straigt.

[Spatial]

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.

it's time

[RecycledElectrons]

It's time to blow up federal buildings.

Andy Out!

Re:As a result the following information is illega

[Hatta]

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.

This is going to be AWESOME!

[Verdatum]

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!

Re:More flaimbait posts.

[gstoddart]

Hi there. Let me introduce you to the Depart of Justice Civil Rights Division, which pursues civil matters on the behalf of private entities.

Allow me to dispel your insinuations that this department is currently doing the equivalent of what is being proposed.

From their web site ...

The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice was established in 1957. The Division is the program institution within the federal government responsible for enforcing federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex, disability, religion, and national origin. Since its establishment, the Division has grown dramatically both in size and responsibility.

The Division enforces the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1968; the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended through 1992; the Equal Credit Opportunity Act; the Americans with Disabilities Act; the National Voter Registration Act; the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act; the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act; and additional civil rights provisions contained in other laws and regulations. These laws prohibit discrimination in education, employment, credit, housing, public accommodations and facilities, voting, and certain federally funded and conducted programs.

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

Yet another "War on XXX"...

[Joce640k]

And as likely to succeed as all the others.

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.

I know everyone's up in arms about this...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

... but let's think about this. Which would you prefer in this situation? Would you rather the RIAA be in charge of investigating and prosecuting file sharers, or would you rather a force at least represented by the government, whom you elect? At least the government is not driven purely by profit.

Dear U.S. Senate,

[brassmaster]

Pull your collective HEAD out of your collective ASS.

Re:Hardly a new thing...

[Sandbags]

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

Enforcement tactics

[eagl]

I wonder if the new copyright cops will get tanks and guns or will be a part of DHS so they can make warrantless house intrusions and take equipment before evidence is destroyed. It's all perfectly logical how they would NEED certain military style hardware and no-knock entry authority to do their job, right? After all, their JOB will absolutely require unannounced home intrusion, just like you'd expect against violent criminals, gang hideouts, and drug labs.

Hell, if these guys show up *without* SWAT style tactics, they might reasonably expect to get shot by homeowners objecting to people busting into their houses to steal their computers.

Knock Knock
Who is it?
Copyright cops. Let us in and we're going to take your stereo, all your CDs, all your computers, and all storage media in the house, both analog and digital. Trust us, we're from the government, and we're coming in whether or not you give us permission since if we wait until you get warrant confirmation, you might have erased all evidence.
*door opens*
Gunfire follows as homeowner defends property from intruders without proof of law enforcement status

The obvious solution is to give the cops a tank and disarm the homeowner...

Re:As a result the following information is illega

[Sandbags]

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

Re:Seizures?

[foobsr]

I just don't see it getting better, but getting worse.

Agreed, and another bad thing is that these 'rules' are exported to the (willing) US-colonies (UK etc. ...). I disagree, however, that it is about punishment of misbehaviour or crime. I rather think it is about preparing for a different regime.

CC.

Re:You Think This is About Business Models?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

This is the conclusion of Capitalist Democracy

[Nick Ives]

What else do you expect from Capitalist Democracy though?

Consider:

• Politicians need to get re-elected.
• The candidate with the most money tends to win.
• The best way to get lots of campaign contributions is to suck up to rich people and companies

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!

Given the popularity of W here...

[Amazing Quantum Man]

This suggestion is going to be modded to oblivion, but...

Remember, any bill must be signed by the President to become law (modulo veto overrides et al.). Hold your nose and write to Bush.
Ask him to veto this law should it come across his desk. Use his own language and prejudices in your favor. Use terms like "Unwarranted government intrusion into business", and "liberal Hollywood elite".

Disclaimer: In the last two elections I voted neither Democrat nor Recpublican.

Capitalism ALWAYS leads to socialism for the rich

[spun]

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.

Re:You Think This is About Business Models?

[maxume]

I think it might work out really well if copyright was reformulated as right-of-sale. I write a book? I get to profit from selling it for some period of time. If someone else wants to sell it, they have to deal with me. If someone else wants to copy it and distribute it for free, well, tough beans for me.

That way, if Apple wants to charge for access to a well organized, high quality library of music, they have to pay the artists, but if they want to give it away to prop up their hardware sales, that is their business.

Under such a system, the artists (and the people sitting in front of them) probably wouldn't get as much money, but their works wouldn't so easily get exploited by people with more money as they would in a total free for all.

VOTE THESE FUCKERS OUT ALREADY!!

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

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.

No not really

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:Capitalism ALWAYS leads to socialism for the ri

[spun]

No, I did not mean it that way. But Americans in general do look down on socialism, and so I like to point out that what we do IS akin to socialism, but only for the wealthy. I would prefer America had more socialism for the average person, rather than having all our tax dollars go to handouts and tax breaks for the owning class.