Slashdot Mirror


President Signs Law Creating Copyright Czar

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "President Bush has signed the EIPRA (AKA the PRO-IP Act) and created a cabinet-level post of 'Copyright Czar,' on par with the current 'Drug Czar,' in spite of prior misgivings about the bill. They did at least get rid of provisions that would have had the DOJ take over the RIAA's unpopular litigation campaign. Still, the final legislation (PDF) creates new classes of felony criminal copyright infringement, adds civil forfeiture provisions that incorporate by reference parts of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, and directs the Copyright Czar to lobby foreign governments to adopt stronger IP laws. At this point, our best hope would appear to be to hope that someone sensible like Laurence Lessig or William Patry gets appointed."

3 of 555 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Czar by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ok, outside the copyright debate, am I the only one that is extremely skeptical when someone is the "czar" of something? What the hell does that actually mean, and what can they actually do?

    Establish a secret police to rout all revolutionaries and anti-royalists. Establish a serfdom and enforce it with an iron fist. Confiscate the property of radicals and starve them and their families. Get lined up against a wall and shot when the revolution comes.

  2. Re:USA + Bush = FAIL by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Informative

    Your government is out of control. Perfect timing. This will get zero media attention.

    In the subject, you name Bush.
    In your post, you name "your government"

    Guess what, they are not one and the same.
    Bush has issued 12 vetoes during 8 years.
    4 of those vetoes were overridden.

    The blame for this rests on the Senators and Congressmen who allowed themselves to be lobbied into passing such industry serving legislation.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  3. Re:Civil Asset Forfeiture = Really Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Drugs were but an excuse. The government wanted to increase their ability to track money through the economy, reduce gray/black market activities, force people into using banking for every penny they could, increase taxation success, reduce currency in circulation, increase plastic usage, etc, just give it some thought. I can remember when successful farmers and ranchers carried rolls of hundred dollar bills with them often, no idea if they still do that or not but if they do they are at risk while just trying to do their daily business. Used car dealers on buying trips have had their money seized in forfeiture as have many others that don't have anything to do with drugs. For law enforcement, it is a license to steal and even kill. One of the examples being:

    Some Police Will Kill You For Your Property

              In Malibu, California, park police tried repeatedly to buy the home and land of 61-year-old, retired rancher Don Scott, which was next to national park land. Scott refused. On the morning of October 2, 1992, a task force of 26 LA county sheriffs, DEA agents and other cops broke into Scott's living room unannounced. When he heard his wife, Frances, scream, he came out of his upstairs bedroom with a gun over his head. Police yelled at him to lower his gun. He did, and they shot him dead.

              Police claimed to be searching for marijuana which they never found. Ventura County DA Michael Bradbury concluded that the raid was "motivated at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit the ranch for the government . . . [The] search warrant became Donald Scott's death warrant."

    Wonder how many similar things were just swept under the rug?