Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Senate Passes PRO-IP Act

Posted by Soulskill on from the ruh-roh-shaggy dept.

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.

45 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: 2, Interesting

      Things like this, TRULY, make me laugh... not your post I am replying to!

      (Well, part of it does, & it's not YOU, or your statement from you)

      I mean, the very fact the US really IS 'moving away' from the production of physical goods in & of itself, is a damn joke!

      I.E.-> Outsourcing harms us more than anything else!

      ( & the STUPID gov't. allows it! )

      What they OUGHT TO BE DOING, is saying "Sure, we'll do 'laissez-faire', & allow you to do this, BUT, we will also penalize & tax you for doing it also, taking away your incentive to do so - thus, you'll bring back the jobs to our internal domestic shores, because we'll make outsourcing less profitable for you by us doing so"!

      Thus, creating more internal jobs & thus, also more taxpayer state & federal income, via taxation in the same stroke - of course, you have to remember that MOST of these "politicians" are scumbags, & also are bought and paid for (in the pockets of) corporate masters/backers, OR, these self-same politicians have monies invested into these companies also).

      What about practices companies have done for DECADES (if not centuries), in taking a competitor's superior product, & "reverse-engineering it" (taking it apart, seeing what makes it tick, & then, producing an analog of it in THEIR OWN EQUIPMENT, to make it perform equitably or near to @ least, that of their competitors)? You'll NEVER see that being put into law (or it may be already, but they do it anyhow) used to attack "the big guys/rich", only the "little guy/average joe" (who doesn't have a good paying job, because it was outsourced, so he steals tunes, programs, etc. online).

      Give us a break U.S. government - get less corrupt (especially the FUCKING REPUBLICAN SCUMBAGS!)

    3. Re:Voting by Don_dumb · · Score: 2

      How? Lets see, aside from some US movies and music along with Apple or Microsoft,

      So aside from almost everything?

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    4. Re:Voting by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Funny

      No. What we need is a truly free economy that means A) No minimum wage, B) Copyright law where unless you are making money on the product you can pirate all you want C) Little to no patents D) The government stays out except to 1) Protect us 2) create general law and order 3) give a basic education and 4) maintain roads. If all those were followed, we would have no economic crisis.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    5. 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.

    6. Re:Voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Some decent points, & I'd have to say, in combination with those you replied to would probably be "a way" to get the job done, & done right... because it certainly IS NOT BEING DONE RIGHT, now, by the current administration (or, are the economic results satisfactory under the current & previous administration? NO WAY!).

      E.G. - If you or I were to have "such a good performance on the job" as the current set of politicians have done (not, it's horrendous - proof being the state of the economy itself alone)? We'd be fired, quickly. The results of today's state of the nation, especially economically, evidence my statement for me, cleanly.

    7. Re:Voting by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Senate vote was unanimous

      Not exactly true. It was passed by unanimous consent, which means that nobody who might have decided to vote against it actually cared enough to participate in the process.

    8. Re:Voting by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No. What we need is a truly free economy that means A) No minimum wage, B) Copyright law where unless you are making money on the product you can pirate all you want C) Little to no patents D) The government stays out except to 1) Protect us 2) create general law and order 3) give a basic education and 4) maintain roads. If all those were followed, we would have no economic crisis.

      Roads? Education? If people want education for their kids, they can buy it. And don't get me started on roads. Want to get somewhere, you take a helicopter. Don't see what's so hard about that. Law and Order? That's a TV show. You don't want someone stealing your stuff, you hire a security guard.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    9. Re:Voting by strabes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hope your comment isn't serious and I wasted my time writing this comment, because if it is, nearly everything in it is entirely wrong and bass ackwards.

      First, your comment about âoewe'll do laissez-faireâ but penalize you and tax you, blah blah blah, is ridiculous. Clearly taxes, quotas, and tariffs are not laissez faire.

      The arguments against outsourcing and for protective tariffs are a total joke. They necessarily rest on the faulty mercantilist assumption that there is a fixed amount of labor in the world and when a company outsources labor to another country, US consumers are just that much worse off. I'll address that imaginary problem of eliminating âoeinternal jobsâ later. Regardless, when one argues that outsourcing is bad and tariffs are good, one is unquestionably arguing that it is 1) better for US consumers to pay higher prices for their goods than they otherwise would, and 2) that US workers should work in less-productive jobs than they otherwise would. Both of these will be explained and argued against in the quote from a book I have copied below.

      The two largest reasons why people like yourself favor ridiculous economic legislation like high tariffs are that 1) you only look at the immediate consequences of the legislation, and 2) you clearly do not have a background in economics. Sure, tariffs help prevent foreign competition in US markets. This is good for the US producers of the product. However, it also keeps prices higher for US consumers, and keeps people employed in underproductive, less-than-competitive firms.

      Every dollar over the world price that US consumers have to pay for a product is another dollar that they don't have to buy other items. For example, say China was producing sweaters for $25 and the US sweater industry produced them for $30. There is a protective tariff on foreign sweaters to allow US producers to compete. Now suppose the tariff is repealed. I'll quote directly from Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson:

      "The tariff is repealed; the manufacturer goes out of business; a thousand workers are laid off; the particular tradesmen whom they patronized are hurt. This is the immediate result that is seen. But there are also results which, while much more difficult to trace, are no less immediate and no less real. For now sweaters that formerly cost retail $30 apiece can be bought for $25. Consumers can now buy the same quality of sweater for less money, or a much better one for the same money. If they buy the same quality of sweater, they not only get the sweater, but they have $5 left over, which they would not have had under the previous conditions, to buy something else. With the $25 that they pay for the imported sweater they help employment-as the American manufacturer no doubt predicted-in the sweater industry in England. With the $5 left over they help employment in any number of other industries in the UNited States. But the results do not end there. By buying English sweaters they furnish the English with dollars to buy American goods here. This, in fact (if I may here disregard such complications as fluctuating exchange rates, loans, credits, etc.) is teh only way in which the British can eventually make use of these dollars. Because we have permitted the British to sell more to us, they are now able to buy more from us if their dollar balances are not to remain perpetually unused. So as a result of letting in more British goods, we must export more American goods. And although fewer people are now employed in the American sweater industry, more people are employed-and much more efficiently empoloyed-in, say, the American washing-machine or aircraft-building business. American employment on net balance has not gone down, but American and British production on net balance has gone up. Labor in each country is more fully employed in doing just those things that it does best, instead of being force to do things that it does inefficiently or badly. Consumers in both countries are better off. They are able to

      --
      Its = possessive. It's = "it is"
    10. Re:Voting by orasio · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then you don't think you need a truly free economy. You just want the regulations to be where you like them. And want to remove the regulations that do not affect you, or that you don't undestand.
      I also believe that if my government didn't spend so much money on health, they would have the money to give me a nice gift at the end of the year.

    11. 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.

      --
      The ______ Agenda
  2. Re:Sounds Good To Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Strong IP protection and enforcement will help protect one of our most vital and productive assets.

    Our precious bodily fluids?

    I don't think we want to go to a route like China, where lax IP enforcements stunt their domestic IP growth.

    Yep, the Commies have no regard for intellectual property - not even their own.

  3. The U.S. government has become very corrupt. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A few of the problems with the U.S. Congress: 1) Insufficient understanding or caring about the issues. 2) Hidden agendas. 3) Blatant corruption. 4) Passing laws quickly, without allowing debate. 5) Writing laws so that it is difficult to understand their implications. 6) Combining good legislation with bad, so that the bad will pass. 7) Providing descriptions that present laws as different from their true purpose.

    An example of number 3 was removing the regulations that required banks to have assets similar to their liabilities, with the understanding that taxpayers would pay for the resulting bankruptcies.

    Another example of number 3 was removing the regulations that required savings and loan organizations to have sufficient assets to cover their loans, with the understanding that taxpayers would pay for the resulting bankruptcies.

    1. Re:The U.S. government has become very corrupt. by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Another example of number 3 was removing the regulations that required savings and loan organizations to have sufficient assets to cover their loans, with the understanding that taxpayers would pay for the resulting bankruptcies.

      Now now, let's not engage in hyperbole here! The regulations requiring them to have sufficient assets were never changed. What was changed was the definition of what constitutes an "asset"! The key line in the Wikipedia entry is

      "They were also allowed to take an ownership position in the real estate and other projects to which they made loans"

      Essentially what happened was that oversight over the real value of their assets was removed, which allowed the S&L's to basically buy worthless swampland and sell it back and forth to each other until its "value" was artificially high, then use the swampland's inflated value towards their "assets" calculation.

      It may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but the distinction is important. Because it happened that way, the S&L's were able to say, up to the bitter end, that they had "federal law requiring sufficient assets" protecting their customers. If the asset requirement had actually been removed, people would have rightfully freaked out and withdrawn their money. This illustrates how fiendishly corrupt government is, and how you have to be diligent, how can't depend on them doing something bad in a blatant manner to warn you you're about to get hosed.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  4. Good thing that they have their priorites right by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I mean, it's not like they have a financial crisis that they should be spending their time on.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  5. The existing system wasn't working... by compumike · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From Senator Wyden:

    "With over 30,000 civil suits filed by a single entity against individual Americans it is clear that industry is more than able to enforce its intellectual property rights in civil courts without the contribution of taxpayer funds and busy federal prosecutors."

    But while that's a kind of system that should be working, it really isn't. There are still tens of millions of Americans who either believe that it is within their "fair use" rights to freely redistribute copyrighted materials to dozens of unknown online participants, or do so fully knowing it is illegal.

    So while the method sucks... isn't this actually a reasonable place for government action, you know, in enforcing the law?

    --
    Learn electronics! Powerful microcontroller kits for the digital generation.

    1. Re:The existing system wasn't working... by Kilz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "So while the method sucks... isn't this actually a reasonable place for government action, you know, in enforcing the law?"

      The simple answer is... NO. While it is a good idea to punish commercial exploitation of copyright. Punishing end users only makes matters worse. That so many people are breaking this law points to the fact that it is unjust. Unjust laws should be removed, not reinforced. An example of this is Prohibition. Consuming Alcohol was against the law, but no one followed the law. The government saw eventually that the law was unjust because so many broke it, and it was removed.
      Should they have lined up all those that drank a beer and shot them and took their homes?

      --
      I trust Microsoft as far as I could comfortably spit a dead rat
    2. Re:The existing system wasn't working... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry...

      Sorry, eh? For what? At least it makes it easier for me to know who to disagree with: they start out by apologizing. The Constitution give Congress the power to legislate copyright and patent laws to encourage useful arts and sciences. I can't see how this law will result in increased artistic and technological production and innovation. So I guess you don't get much respect from me either -- oh, and "sorry". Now go cry like a toddler yourself.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    3. Re:The existing system wasn't working... by wellingj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Doesn't that make the obvious solution to legislate against those undesireable actions? As far as I'm concerned all these nanny laws should just go away. If you can do something without hurting another person righty, body, or property (or government property) then I say there is not crime. Preventative laws restrict the freedom of the individual and alway punish every one for undesirable action that might occur. It's that undesirable action that "might occur" that should be legislated against, not any other action that could lead up to the undesireable action.

      --
      Money is the root of all evil?
    4. 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. 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.

    --
    MP3 Search Engine
  7. Vote the Fuckers Out by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Early on in this administration they changed the bankruptcy rules to make it harder to declare bankruptcy, stating that individual Americans need to be more responsible with their borrowing. At the same time they've driven this country into historic levels of debt and are now debating a bail out package for their friends on wall street with $700 billion of taxpayer dollars. Time and again they vote to support their friends in big business, but if you're an individual facing possible homelessness they'll treat you to some weasel words and turn their back on you.

    This November we should all vote with one voice, Democrat and Republican, against the current corrupt congress. We should vote across the board, not Democrat or Republican but against anyone sitting in office. We should kick every single one of those bastards out, and we should keep kicking them out after just one term until they once more represent the people and not the businesses that contribute millions of dollars a year to their campaign funds. We should keep kicking them out until they spend more time doing the jobs we elected them to do instead of gallivanting around and campaigning for most of their terms. We should keep kicking them out until we find some people who actually take the responsibility to fix the major problems in thus country.

    It is time to put aside our petty differences and root out this corruption that infects our very core, before it destroys this country.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. 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.
    2. Re:Vote the Fuckers Out by cervo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well yes and no. Some congressman do do an okay job (not mine). As far as I can tell Ron Paul votes no to almost everything. Unfortunately with the shitty laws they pass it is probably mostly the right way. I'm sure there are those 5 or 10 congressmen who do their job right. We need to find/promote them and then vote everyone else out. If we vote out the few good ones too, we'll probably get bad ones in their place...I would bet that if we keep doing that maybe we get 5 or 10 more good congressmen each vote. In a few hundred years we could have a good congress....now if only we could mix that with a good president.....

      Of course a better way would be to get more third party candidates in congress to destroy the powerbase of both democrats and republicans. It is much harder to have to pay 10 or 11 political parties than to just have to bribe 2.

    3. Re:Vote the Fuckers Out by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Informative
      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. 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.

      Sure it's most likely that a democrat or republican will get in behind them, but the longer they stay in Congress the more corrupt they get. A lot of the freshmen congressmen go in with the idea that they will somehow change things. After three or four terms they're getting their share of the pie, just like everyone else. Keep rotating them out before we get to that point and we'll be better off. Give some third parties a shot and getting in there and we'll be better off. I'm not saying we should vote with any party affiliations. I'm saying that we should vote against the guy in there, even if he's our party. And we should keep doing that until Congress serves us again, not the other way around.

      As for the presidential candidate this time around, I don't think either of the two major parties really deserves my vote, though I'm absolutely terrified of the idea of Sarah Palin being one stroke away from the presidency. If it weren't for that, I'd cast my vote for a third party.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    4. Re:Vote the Fuckers Out by freedom_india · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This would just result in one bunch of corrupt, spineless, thoughtless, clueless tube-savvy idiots to be replaced by another bunch of corrupt, blah blah, guys.
      Look, every single senator and congressman has at some point got some money from corporates, etc. No one uses his money anymore to get elected.
      You can keep kicking them out every 2 years, but the same type of guys will return every time.
      Until such time a legislation is passed outlawing ALL outside funding for elections, except that provided by Government.
      I mean if Ted Stevens got a contribution from Exxon for campaign, it SHOULD result in a 20-year jail term with no parole for BOTH Stevens and the CEO for Exxon.
      The government funding should kick in once the candidate submits 1,000 signatures or 1% of the registered voters whichever is lesser, on paper.
      Federal and State income taxes SHOULD fund the elections.
      No donations, no campaign contributions, no crap.
      Do that, and immediately you will see lobbyists losing their jobs and Senators suddenly balking on supporting bailouts and RIAA.
      Until then, until their hand remains inside their pants, they will be corrupt.
      You can do NOTHING as a voter.
      New candidates would be "broken" before they reach some maturity.
      Take even Obama for example. He is accepting donations from corporates, while initially he acted as if he is the true messiah and accepted donations from people only. Now he has backtracked knowing well people are tapped out.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    5. 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.
  8. Re:Huurah! by TheLink · · Score: 2, 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.

    --
  9. Fiddling while Rome burns by bogjobber · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Thankfully this isn't that terrible of a bill with that ridiculous idea stripped out, but it was completely unnecessary. Our country is falling down around us, and they're worried about copyright infringement.

    The only thing Democrats and Republicans can come together on is selling their constituents' rights for a few pennies.

    1. Re:Fiddling while Rome burns by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This stuff should be really obvious to you. I don't even know why I'm wasting my time posting this on slashdot, because I know you're all going to hate it.

      It is obvious. The problem is, short-sighted individuals such as yourself don't have the bigger picture, don't seem to grasp the reason copyright was implemented in this country (although the Constitution lays it out in pretty clear English), and most of all don't realize that the power of copyright has been conscripted to benefit the few over the many. That is diametrically opposed to both the Founders' intentions and Constitutional law ... if you can't see that then I have no choice but to believe you're either ignorant of the topic, or a paid shill. Regardless, you're right about one thing: we're all going to hate you.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  10. Re:Huurah! by nipoez · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    I presume, then, that you missed the portion of the law creating five positions for "International Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordinators"? Their sole goal will be convincing other countries to adopt similar legislation.

  11. Misleading by Triv · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm not an expert on the subject, but it looks like the summary doesn't match the article.

    The summary says the new bill leaves out a section that might have brought a presidental veto, but the article says that the part that the president might take issue with, the creation of a "Copyright Czar" within the White House, was left IN the bill but that a veto is unlikely.

    The summary also says that the bill has passed the senate, but I can't find a record of that in THOMAS anywhere, just that the AMENDMENTS to the bill were unanimously approved and that the bill itself is scheduled to be voted on soon. Nothing has passed anything yet; there's no congressional voting record available.

    This is an important piece of legislation, I know it is, but the summary makes it sound like this is a done deal when it's absolutely not. Some rudimentary fact-checking would've killed ya?

    (and no, I'm not new here.)

  12. Re:Huurah! by Pool_Noodle · · Score: 2, Funny

    They've got to work for those bribes ... err ... "Carefully misplaced envelopes of non-consecutive bills that will influence their decisions"

    --
    "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind" - Dr. Seuss
  13. 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.
  14. We are screwed by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yet more proof that government is for the corporation, not the people. Too bad by the time the average joe is effected by this it will be far too late.

    I will be willing to bet this is not the only thing that slips thru the side door while everyone watches the banking fiasco. ( like the automotive bailout...)

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  15. Done Deal by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, but its pretty damned close. And if you don't try to do anything about it today, it might as well be.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  16. Re:Huurah! by jimicus · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    Depending on which country you're in, you may or may not be fine.

    Europe will probably enact similar legislation 5-10 years down the line as a European law. Expect corresponding laws in EU member states to ratify these on a per-country basis after another 2-3 years.

    For many parts of Africa, "being less competitive than the US" is the least of their problems.

    For the middle East, any countries the US considers even remotely likely to become an economic threat may expect diplomatic measures and/or cluster bombs. If there's oil involved, you can confidently expect the diplomatic bit to be bypassed.

    Regarding the far East, many countries are already far more competitive than the US and the US is buying so much from there that they can neither bomb you nor enact economic sanctions without causing themselves more harm than good.

    In terms of major areas, this leaves South America, Canada, Australia and the poles. I don't know enough about any of these regions to comment.

  17. I wrote to my Congresswoman... by Tatsh · · Score: 4, Informative

    and all I got was this stinkin'...

    Anyway, here is the real letter:

    Please vote no on the 'PRO-IP Act'. This act is nothing but a provision to protect businesses who cannot adapt with our 'digital age' and will not accept that they need to create new products and not 're-hash' the same content every 10 years.

    Consider the film industry. What are they up to now? They keep moving formats, each time simply because one may contain a better form of DRM. Both new formats for physical media, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, have DRM (digital rights management, a scheme to protect content from easily being copied by the average person) built-in that was stronger than DVD's protection. Regardless, as citizens, we are asking for our fair use rights back more than anything else, and the repeal of the DMCA. Now the MPAA as a whole has switched to BluRay in the hopes that such DRM will keep the money 'flowing in'. I, and many others, refuse to buy such a media even if we like the content. Secondly, we refuse to watch the content at all.

    Every other industry is now similar, and they are simply placing the blame on 'pirates'. EA Games has implemented a DRM scheme where we may purchase their game, but only install it a total of 5 times, and each time will be accounted for because the installations will be verified on-line. After that, especially when such a product is not on the shelves any more, what is a fully law-abiding citizen to do?

    It is nothing but a waste of tax money to have more resources in the government trying to keep these failing business models alive. Good businesses would adapt to the market properly, making new products, better products, understanding the customer needs, and certainly NOT treating the customers as criminals before they have even done anything 'illegal' (this is what they assume, since they use DRM so unwittingly and hardly give consumers warning).

    Most citizens are going to agree that so-called 'street pirates' should be given punishment, including myself. That is the large difference. This bill has a provision for that, but it seems as though it could easily be used for individuals who are not making any money from 'pirates', who I cannot see as doing anything that is hurting these industries.

    If RIAA head Mitch Bainwol has called the legislation "music to the ears of all those who care about strengthening American creativity and jobs," he really means that it will further allow the RIAA to enforce more DRM on their potential customers, while most are far too undereducated on the topic to know what is really going on. They buy a CD that may contain protection, or download a music file from a store, but what is almost NEVER labelled clearly is that such a medium is protected from fair use (i.e. making a backup copy).

    What is here to replace the failing business models? Non-failing ones. We have the Internet, a place where people can publish their music (charge money or not) without ever having to go through a major publisher such as Warner. And same for films. While many will say much of Youtube is a waste, many people are gaining recognition. Monetary? Hardly, but they are happy with being known 'out there', just as a film star celebrity.

    Tell the industries who want this law passed that they need to handle their business in ways that help and strengthen their relationships with their customers, not weaken them, just because a law says that they can do so, and please vote no under all circumstances.

    Thank you

    Everyone else please contact your Congressman/Congresswoman! Even a sentence or two can make the difference between not writing anything at all.

  18. Re:Huurah! by jacquesm · · Score: 3, Funny

    Poland is part of the EU now ;)

    --
    MP3 Search Engine
  19. Copying Madonna by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    doesn't cause two cars to crash.

    Talk about extreme hyberbole.

  20. no by unity100 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    leave aside being republican, im a liberal in TURKEY. a major trading partner of usa, especially in textiles and manufacturing.

    i dont need to tell you that any such protectionist measures as you propose will be met with similar measures against usa in the world. nations are not stupid. they arent gonna let you go protectionist on your internal market, but export to their own internal markets. thats the fact of life, if you give, you have to take. get used to it.

    im talking to you from outside, outta the stupid delusions you americans wall yourself with.

    there is no isolation in a global world. any step towards isolation, not only lowers the standard of living in a particular country, but also lowers the standards for entire world. observe north korea, ussr and other isolationist regimes that came and passed.

    you should start seeing yourself not a u.s. citizen, but a world citizen, and start evaluating your life based on your personal qualifications, and open up to the world personally and seek your fortunes rather than shut yourself down to your country and locale. hint : internet allows you to live IN your locale and work for some company in the opposite corner of the world.

    --
    Read radical news here
  21. What's wrong with it? by DaveWick79 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The only people that seem to be horribly affected by this is the people who seem to think it is ok to share copyrighted materials with as many people as want them, and they want to be immune from being prosecuted for their activities. This bill doesn't necessarily affect the legality of what they are doing, it stiffens the penalties.

    In order to sidestep the entire issue, the recording industry should lower prices on all the various forms of audio and video media, make them more affordable to the general public and more available via online services. They would sell more, keeping profits rolling in, while lessening the widespread consumer file sharing because of the affordability. Sell mp3's for 15 cents each and CD's for $5. Alot of people do this because it's simply too expensive to buy all of their favorite music. How much would it cost to fill up that 4GB Ipod with legit CD's? Assuming you could fit somewhere in the neighborhood of 800 songs on there, that's $800 at Itunes. What if you could do it for under $100? I think alot of people would go for that.

  22. The geek is no less self-serving and deceptive by westlake · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I prefer to call it data rather than IP. It draws attention to the fundamental nature of the product.
    .

    It draws attention away from the true nature of the product.

    WALL-E does not begin as a pre-existing stream of numbers but as the collective effort of about 400 artists and craftsman working on a budget of $180 million dollars.

    That does not happen - that never happens - unless the studio and its financial backers see a reasonable expectation of profit.

  23. China by phorm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Which is why - in many ways - China may actual progress while the US will continue to stagnate.

    With the current patent and IP system in the US, it will reward those that may come up with an idea but not necessarily though that produce a product. Moreover, producing a product becomes dangerous as the chances of intersecting somebody else's IP goes up, and companies become unwilling to produce products due to the risk of being sued.

    Meanwhile, Chinese and other non-IP-following shops will continue to ignore American IP, producing stuff (often "for cheap") which they happily sell to pretty much everyone.

    I really can't see a future for an economy based no ideas/concepts/virtual-property VS one based on actually building something based on those ideas.