Slashdot Mirror


US Senate Passes PRO-IP Act

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The Senate has passed the PRO-IP Act. While they stripped out the provision to have the DoJ act as copyright cops, it still contains increased penalties for infringement, civil forfeiture provisions, and creates an 'IP czar' to coordinate enforcement. Even though the civil forfeiture provisions are ostensibly intended for use against commercial piracy outfits, history indicates that they will probably get used against individuals at some point. Worse, because they left out the only part of the bill that Bush threatened to veto, it is expected to pass. It is going back to the House where they're expected to pass it on Saturday, after which the President will probably sign it. So, if you want to contact your representative, hurry." An anonymous reader notes that DefectiveByDesign.Org is mobilizing to fight this legislation. The Senate vote was unanimous. We've been following the progress of this bill for quite some time.

9 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. Voting by theCoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is outrageous! I don't think I can vote for the Senator running for president that voted for that bill that goes completely the wrong way on copyright reform, so I guess I'll have to vote for

    The Senate vote was unanimous

    Damn.

    I wonder if any of the third party candidates opposed this bill...

    --
    "Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
    1. Re:Voting by stupido · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Given that the US economy is moving away from the production of physical goods, and embracing IP production more and more, it should come as no surprise that the state got more involved in policing IP "theft".

      I bet this is going to get advertised as another law to "save the US economy".

    2. Re:Voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I prefer to call it data rather than IP. It draws attention to the fundamental nature of the product.

    3. Re:Voting by cgenman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A free, unregulated economy above a certain size is almost guaranteed to degrade into monopolies. This is not just my assessment, but that of Adam Smith, founder of a lot of the principles of free-market capitalism.

      Take for example the privitization of water in Argentina. The capital outlay is heavy enough that nobody else can afford to do it, or if they did they would have little chance of recouping. However, the water company in Argentina is by far one of the most profitable institutions in the country, nearly doubling monthly fees since their tenure. If there wasn't government regulation, that company could then enter into new markets with the hook that "if you sell anything other
      than our beef, we won't provide water." This is exactly the tactic that Microsoft took in the mid 90's to prevent computer manufacturers from working with the other (many times superior) operating systems on the market at the time.

      Taking it a step further, a "Truly Free" economy is indistinguishable from the anarchy that exists in a power vacuum, and which quickly degrades into feudal warlordism.

      Oh, but you'd have regulations against use of force, improperly leveraging monopolies, properly labeling items, adhering to contracts, etc, etc, etc. And that of course all requires regulatory bodies, police force, civillian treaties for non-lethan enforcement, additional regulatory bodies to form and enact those civillian treaties, etc. As orasio mentioned, you can't have a "Truly free economy" without a hell of a lot of regulatory institutions. Otherwise, what would prevent me from saying "I'll insure your house against hurricanes," taking all of the money for personal use, and abandoning everyone when the first hurricane came along? Or becoming the head of an established bank, taking everyone's deposits, and heading for the Cayman islands?

      As my father liked to say (in more colorful language), we're no longer arguing about if you're a communist, but just haggling over degrees.

  2. well, at least they're open about their commitment by jacquesm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you don't know who runs the USA after today then you're simply blind: Corporations are the real government.

  3. Re:Vote the Fuckers Out by Jaysyn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It won't matter, because the ones that get voted in will still be Republicans & Democrats. I swear mainstream voters are *just* like abused spouses who just keep coming back for more beatings. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  4. Re:Huurah! by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm fine with it as long as this sort of thing stays in the USA. It'll just make other countries relatively more competitive.

    You wish. Every time any nation ups the ante with a more restrictive and draconian copyright law, everyone else (except China) jumps on the bandwagon to "harmonize". Nothing brings out the spirit of "international cooperation" like Disney Dollars.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  5. Re:The existing system wasn't working... by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And let us not forget these laws are being made up by the same folks who say ripping your purchased cd to your iPod is illegal. You see,this isn't about "teh evil piratez",this is about getting you conditioned to pay over and over and OVER again for the same crap.

    I'm sorry I can't find the link from the studio head(I believe BMI) who said music should be pay per use,just like the old days of jukeboxes. Sadly,the guy was actually serious. Is that what you really want,a CC slot in your iPod so you can pay every time you want to hear a song? Maybe add a CC slot to your radio too? And don't think it can't happen,because our "How much money? Really?" whores in congress would sell out their own mothers for a fat enough check.

    If EVERYONE is breaking your law then the law needs to be changed,PERIOD. Or did that "We,the people" part get changed to "We,the corporation" while I wasn't looking? Of course now that they are privatizing prisons this could turn into a win/win for the corps. They can rig the laws for themselves all they want,and when the people naturally break them because they are oppressive,they get paid by the state to warehouse them. Must be good to rule everything.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  6. Re:Vote the Fuckers Out by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not your guy, it's every guy! Reagan really started the ball rolling on the deregulation that is one of the reasons we're in this mess now.

    No, it was Carter, who lifted rate caps and and upped FSLIC coverage to 100% for the S&L's...

    No, wait... it was Nixon monkeying with the gold standard....

    No, it was Johnson mortgaging our future with uncontrolled government spending...

    Hold on.... I think I've spotted a pattern....

    But the Democrats have been more than happy to suck at the teat of the taxpayer while enriching their own cronies. Get rid of them all is what I'm saying.

    Damn straight!

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.