Slashdot Mirror


CCIA Calls Copyright Wiretaps 'Hollywood's PATRIOT Act'

An anonymous reader writes "Ars is reporting that the CCIA, a trade group representing companies like AMD, Facebook, Oracle, Yahoo, Google and Microsoft, is calling the copyright wiretaps requested by the IP Czar 'Hollywood's PATRIOT Act.' For those who don't remember, IP Czar Victoria Espinel recently wrote a report calling for more charges of felony copyright infringement under the NET Act, as well as felony charges for illegal web streaming, authorization for the use of wiretaps in going after copyright infringement cases, and several other measures. In short, this means that the copyright cops are coming online."

150 comments

  1. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What a c*nt.

    1. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it just me or do all these women in politics provide any evidence needed by chauvinistic observers to confirm that women really can't do as good a job as a man? Not that the men in politics are qualified to wipe their own butts but...
      I did mean ALL.
      Still waiting for evidence...
      tic,tic,tic...

    2. Re:Wow by phantomflanflinger · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that have been spelt ©unt?

      --
      shin phantomflanflinger
  2. Wise move? by Kjella · · Score: 2

    The PATRIOT act allegedly protects the US against religious terrorists. Hollywood's PATRIOT act allegedly protects the US against economic terrorists aka pirates. I'm not so sure claiming that is a valid comparison is a good strategy....

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Wise move? by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most people realize the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) act sucks, due to how it's used to spy on innocent americans. Likewise this wiretapping to catch people downloading songs, sucks.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    2. Re:Wise move? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sounds like a valid comparison to me; both fuck over the citizenry while doing nothing about the real problem.

    3. Re:Wise move? by morgauxo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Most people here on Slashdot, far removed from the ignorant masses realize.... There fixed that for you

    4. Re:Wise move? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. Who wants to be embarrassed on a job application.

      Have you ever committed a felony: |X| Yes | | No
      If you answered Yes, what was the crime:
      I downloaded a Brittany Spears song I did not pay for in middle school.

      -----------------
      The shame will last a lifetime.

    5. Re:Wise move? by alienzed · · Score: 1

      One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, so it's exactly the same.

      --
      Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
    6. Re:Wise move? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      economic terrorists

      I'd say this places the RIAA and MPAA in line with Muammar Qaddafi.

    7. Re:Wise move? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets say that Bin Ladin is considered by 90 % of people to be a terrorist, and a filesharer is considered by 5 % to be a terrorist. Is that exactly the same?

    8. Re:Wise move? by ddd0004 · · Score: 1

      I was hoping it was written to protect us from the Mel Gibson movie, The Patriot.

    9. Re:Wise move? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Really?

      35-57% support it, they don't list a total figure or the proportion of the three but over 40% is likely. And that is now, if you ask "Was passing the PATRIOT act after 9/11 the right thing to do?" I think you'd find that the general public don't exactly consider it a mistake.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    10. Re:Wise move? by erroneus · · Score: 2

      "The real problem"? I'm sorry, but you will need to clarify. I am still uncertain there is even a problem at all outside of the crap that the **AA's are pulling. They make a LOT of money. They have always made a LOT of money. Their business have never NOT made a LOT of money. They simply have nothing to be worried about. It's all pure greed and malice.

    11. Re:Wise move? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got a great idea! What IF, whaaat iiiiF, they made a WALLSTREET act. Imagine (yes, just imagine like the American dream...) spying of banks and the entire financial market organizations for actual loss of real life millions and billions of dollars! Top that song pirates!

      Think big people! Little fish are just for the peasents bread and circuses.

    12. Re:Wise move? by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, see, there is a problem. The problem is that record companies and movie studios are good at distributing things in record stores and movie theaters, whereas companies like Apple, Amazon and Netflix are good at distributing things on the Internet. That means once everything is being distributed over the Internet, there is no more need for a record label as an intermediary -- the artist pays for some studio time, which is getting less expensive all the time, makes a digital recording and puts it for sale on iTunes without a record label. A bunch of famous actors get together with a big name director, fund the picture out of their own pockets or with venture capital, put it streaming on Netflix and sell DVDs on Amazon and cut out the studios.

      If the incumbent middle men haven't established dominance over Internet distribution and legislated all the alternatives out of existence by the time people stop buying CDs and DVDs at Wal-mart, they're going to have to face competing distributors shaving down their margins and eroding their market share. That's a very serious problem for them, and that's what all of this is really about.

    13. Re:Wise move? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you honestly believe that most Slashdot users are in some way vastly more enlightened about the way the world works just because they subscribe to a technology news aggregator?

    14. Re:Wise move? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Only the far right fundamentalists actually equate the PATRIOT act with something positive. I am really not trying to be biased here, or introduce unwanted vitriol or divisiveness (like I need to add more), but the people who think the PATRIOT act is a good thing are the same people who have blind faith in the US government, complete denial that the America can do anything wrong, and that we should have complete and utter trust in law enforcement in general. They also in general, take the bible to be the literal truth, fight Science with religious fervor, and have the uncanny ability to deny truth and evidence that is inconvenient to their own shared philosophy.

      I think making this comparison is a good strategy. For the people that can actually understand the arguments, and intelligently make arguments for and against it, the PATRIOT act immediately makes one understand how this is being claimed as a bad thing that will be immediately abused by oppressing people and depriving them of their rights and due process... which is exactly what the PATRIOT act is for, and has been used.

      The PATRIOT act was to allow actions that would be condemned elsewhere as Secret Police tactics reminiscent of the Gestapo, NKVD, and the Stasi and make them as clean and wholesome as American Apple Pie.

      What is terrible about this, in a sad pathetic way, is that it is evidence of a larger problem. Using an excuse (Lions, Tigers, and Bears Oh My) to progressively strip America of our basic rights, shift power and wealth to the few, by creating a divisive issue full of bullshit statistics, scare tactics, and corruption.

      It works.

      The real war here is against Anonymity and Privacy. This is just one more move to create a communications infrastructure that is heavily monitored and controlled. I sincerely doubt those in real power care on iota about copyright infringement. They are about the ability to analyze traffic and flag undesirable traffic for further review.

      Those that think the system that will be designed to effect these policies will be limited to a database of copyrighted works of the major (read preferred) distributors are deluding themselves.

    15. Re:Wise move? by butalearner · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly believe that most Slashdot users are in some way vastly more enlightened about the way the world works

      Yes.

      just because they subscribe to a technology news aggregator?

      No.

    16. Re:Wise move? by Transaction7 · · Score: 1

      A college teacher of computer science came to my law office, back in the good old days of DOS 5.0, so I asked him to take a look at our computer. When a C prompt came up, he said "I see you're using C language." I thought he was kidding or making fun of me. He may have been an expert at something but it did not include personal computers or how to set up and use them in a law office. I'm a lawyer, not a computer scientist or software engineer, and came to the computer revolution late in the 80s.

  3. Good luck with that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    See, what you don't understand is that an open internet has allowed businesses to succeed and generate revenue in new ways. These businesses have a vested interest in keeping the internet open. It just so happens that an open internet also serves piracy as well.

    So you have a choice: go back to 1990, and kill the web... killing piracy, but also killing all the businesses that now are based on web technologies (to include MSFT, GOOG, AAPL, etc)... OR... evolve.

  4. For or Against? by metalgamer84 · · Score: 0

    Should I be happy or outraged?

    1. Re:For or Against? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should not have to ask others for your opinion.

    2. Re:For or Against? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      You do when you don't know what the other person meant by what was said, i.e. whether the comparison was intended to be negative or positive. Otherwise you're in a state of, "I agree with my interpretation of what you said without knowing what you meant when you said it," and may end up regretting throwing support to someone with whom you actually disagree.

      Someone who says, "There's a problem with the amount of child porn on the Internet," should be made to clarify whether they think there's too much or not enough; "I stand by my previous statement," is not an acceptable response.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  5. Allegedly by cishuman · · Score: 1

    Very allegedly.

  6. Change by The+Shootist · · Score: 0

    They told me if I voted for McCain, Corporations would try usurp the role of Government. They were right.

    1. Re:Change by Desler · · Score: 2

      Yeah, cause McCain is totally against things like the DMCA and these draconian copyright laws... Oh wait...

    2. Re:Change by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      That was true. "They" just conveniently forgot to say the same thing happens if you vote the other way!

    3. Re:Change by FatSean · · Score: 2

      Who told you that?

      The plane-crashing baby killer and his pet bimbo lost. Get over it. Obama is no prize...but he was the closest to a Liberal that had a shot and he's done OK by me WRT mortgage ReFi, drawing down Iraq, not persecuting gay people, etc...

      --
      Blar.
  7. 'understand' ? by unity100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    they understand. they understand very well that they dont want anyone other than themselves to succeed, no businesses competing them, customers feeding off their hand, on the terms they want them to.

    and your explanation of the fundamentals of internet's success does not mean shit to them, neither they care - they want to have it, and you under their control.

    explanations and talk will not do any good. you need to act, if you want to defend your interests.

    1. Re:'understand' ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's sort of my point... My interest is to have an open internet. It is the same interest that MSFT, AAPL, GOOG, et al have.

      No amount of acting on my part will change anything. I don't have time/energy to start a grass roots "crusade" or anything like that, nor do I have a vast amount of money to pay for one.

      What I'm saying is that the typical slashdot response to news like this is to stoke the fear of how the interweb is under attack, and soon everything will be a 1984 big brother system of "trusted" computing, etc, etc (see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html ).

      This fear is ridiculous. Which is what my point is. The only way the "bad guy" can win is by killing the web completely. And they can't do that. So we are witnessing them flail in the wind, and getting all worked up over it... I think a better response is to simply laugh at them flailing in the wind, as technology obliterates their outdated business models.

    2. Re:'understand' ? by Haffner · · Score: 2

      But what can one legally do? I wish there was a career path or something that I could do to stop this and similar abuses of power by the government, but short of spending 30 years entrenching myself in the system (at which point I'm sure the economic benefits of prolonging corruption will outweigh any lasting moral compulsions not to) to right some minor wrongs, what can a citizen do? Sadly, I think nothing. Most people I speak to about their rights either don't understand what the rights are, or why we need them, and some think that less privacy means more safety. I don't think the masses can comprehend what is occurring, and the educated few don't have the manpower or public outrage to take a stand. It's depressing, really...

      --
      "Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
    3. Re:'understand' ? by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "But what can one legally do?"

      The time for legality is over, unfortunately public ignorance, lack of intelligence and apathy is the issue.

    4. Re:'understand' ? by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      And while you're laughing, they're bringing their considerable lobbying power to bear to push Congress to create whatever laws they want, no matter how destructive they may be. Make no mistake, they WILL throw the baby out with the bathwater if they think they can make a buck on it.

      Stop laughing and grab a pitchfork.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    5. Re:'understand' ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because protesting scares politicians and lobbying firms to straighten up and fly right! Lol, get real.

      Here's what will happen, whether we protest or not: The big firms with a vested interest in an open internet will lobby for it, using their deep pockets. Hollywood will lobby with their deep pockets. A deal will emerge where those in power will be able to stay in power, and everyone will nod their head in agreement. Meanwhile, we will continue to go to work every day, and pretty much just take whatever they agree on. If those in power jack things up too much, we will start to route around their idiocy as best we can, with slight inconvenience.

      And while you're off protesting, pretending that you're making a difference, we will create a decentralized encrypted file sharing system (oh wait, it already exists). And we'll share files no matter what the law says (oh wait, we're already doing that). And a few of us will get in trouble, but the vast vast vast majority of us will live peacefully with TBs of entertainment as the CEO/Congress idiots try their hardest to legislate the impossible.

    6. Re:'understand' ? by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      "...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." - Declaration of Independence

      The career path you're looking for is "revolutionary."

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    7. Re:'understand' ? by spidercoz · · Score: 2

      I'm not talking about protest, I'm talking about fucking revolt. Cast off the government that no longer caters to the needs of its people and institute a new one or be content to wallow in your own complacency. This issue is symptomatic of a much larger, more insidious corruption and yes I agree, protesting will accomplish shit.

      Storm the castle!

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    8. Re:'understand' ? by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 1

      And while you're off protesting, pretending that you're making a difference, we will create a decentralized encrypted file sharing system (oh wait, it already exists). And we'll share files no matter what the law says (oh wait, we're already doing that). And a few of us will get in trouble, but the vast vast vast majority of us will live peacefully with TBs of entertainment as the CEO/Congress idiots try their hardest to legislate the impossible.

      You seem to be missing the big picture. Let me draw an outline:

      IPv4 is running out of addresses. Carrier grade NAT will "fix" it -- all those consumers that aren't running services don't need a public IP. Of course, then your decentralized anything won't work unless they implement something like UPnP, and why would Comcast do that? It would just use more bandwidth and compete with NBC content for your eyeballs.

      Speaking of which, Comcast is buying NBC. And severely under-provisioning their uplink to the general internet. Of course, NBC uses a CDN that gets access to Comcast customers outside of the under-provisioned uplink, so their content is clear and high definition. Not so for your decentralized anything, which will be starved for bandwidth. (Incidentally, ever wonder why your connection 10M down 384K up? There is no technical reason for that.)

      And then there are mobiles. App stores. You can only run corporate-approved apps that make someone money. You think a decentralized encrypted privacy-protecting zero-cost ad-free P2P app is going to make it past the toll collectors? Sure, you can jailbreak, but then you're losing better than half the population. Plus, what happens when ACTA Part III mandates that you get disconnected from the Internet forever if you jailbreak and the carrier detects it?

      Of course, ACTA Part I is bad enough. World-wide DMCA. And we're starting to get a picture of what the real purpose of DRM is. It's about control over the distribution channel -- DRM is lock-in. You have to use the approved DVD player; no DeCSS for Linux. You have to use the approved viewing device; no Google TV for Hulu and certainly no DVR with commercial skipping. Of course, people just jailbreak and circumvent and work around and whatever again, right? But that's not the point. That stuff is a significant inconvenience -- and the inconvenience disadvantages the platforms that aren't Hollywood-approved so that they fail in the marketplace. Then Hollywood only approves platforms with lock-down and app stores, etc. Is it coming together yet?

    9. Re:'understand' ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bravo! You're potentially treading on dangerous ground quoting that document in such an appropriate manner, spider..

    10. Re:'understand' ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I can imagine living in China. You know what they do? Distribute cracks and file sharing software via physical disks.

      Give me a break dude... Government can't control it. Corporations can't control it. That's why they're so scared and trying their damndest to throw money/laws at it to make the problem go away. Too bad it doesn't work and we've already won :-).

  8. The internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was fun while it lasted...

  9. Meanwhile in hell... by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 2

    Joseph McCarthy is doing a happy jig.

    1. Re:Meanwhile in hell... by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      McCarthy was just a small piece of the puzzle. The House Un-american Activities Committee was the main power, and it was run by Democrats from 1945 to 1959. The Demo-run HUAC was also the source of the infamous Hollywood blacklist.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    2. Re:Meanwhile in hell... by TheSpoom · · Score: 2

      I love how everything can be turned into a Dems vs. Repubs arguments. No wait, that other thing. Loathe.

      Doesn't anyone else get that the Red vs. Blue thing is just a distraction from what's actually happening in government?

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    3. Re:Meanwhile in hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      McCarthy was just a small piece of the puzzle. The House Un-american Activities Committee was the main power, and it was run by Democrats from 1945 to 1959. The Demo-run HUAC was also the source of the infamous Hollywood blacklist.

      in 1964 the Republicans and Democrats "switched", just wanted to throw that in so people don't get confused

    4. Re:Meanwhile in hell... by FatSean · · Score: 1

      Small piece you say? Bi-partisan committee I say. And I see you left out the membership ratios of similar committed from 1918-1944 :)

      Say, you must be one of commodore64_love's sockpuppets. Hope you've got a friend in Afghanistan!

      --
      Blar.
    5. Re:Meanwhile in hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair to them, the government was infiltrated by Stalin-loving commies.

    6. Re:Meanwhile in hell... by spidercoz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you implying both sides have the same agenda and are using infighting and childish bickering to cover their atrocities from the public view? The hell you say.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    7. Re:Meanwhile in hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you implying both sides have the same agenda and are using infighting and childish bickering to cover their atrocities from the public view? The hell you say. Yep. One uncovers the others miss-deeds, when they are in power, then the other bunch get power, and the roles reverse. Are they both hell-bent on turning the US into a cross between a corporatocracy and a theocracy? You bet! Corporations have rights that individuals do not. Its not fair, its not right, its America.

  10. This is Good! by cpu6502 · · Score: 0

    Here is what a friend told me (note he voted for Obama, and says he'd happily do it again). Not a direct quote.

    The link is hysteria and not much detail. The Napster already establish free sharing of copyright material is a violation of copyright law. It's inconvenient if we want free stuff, but I don't see any legal basis that we should get free stuff."

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    1. Re:This is Good! by infalliable · · Score: 2

      One of the big issues is that is (currently, in the vast majority of cases) a civil matter. The two parties involved pay for it.

      If it's criminal, your tax dollars are going to be increasingly used to pay for copyright enforcement that the copyright owner doesn't want to pay for. If they don't want to pay for it, why should I? Why should you?

    2. Re:This is Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's his opinion, but the copyright laws and the laws these corporations keep lobbying for are so draconian and unjust that even the most pro-copyright person in existence should object to them.

  11. Outrageous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, they're illegally trespassing your personal property to apply illegal wiretaps.

    Wait, it's all in the name of fighting terrorism? Oh, well, go right ahead then!

  12. USA Exports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US is just trying to protect it's last remaining export.
    The US no longer manufacturers anything with the exception of intellectual property (what ever that is!).

    1. Re:USA Exports by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      soldiers, bombs and uavs

    2. Re:USA Exports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      intellectual property (what ever that is!).

      Definition: An attempt to create artificial restrictions on the exchange of ideas. See flimflam.

  13. felony charges = trail by jury and all the other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    felony charges = trail by jury and all the other stuff that comes with it.

  14. Send em away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, let's send a bunch of people downloading their favorite album to prison, that'll show em! Better yet, let's set up a guillotine on Hollywood Boulevard and have some beheadings.

  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  16. Millions of children become felons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So your kid is listening to some music, or watching a TV show online... that's a felony! There are no exceptions for age, or for just not understanding the internet. And there are millions of little kids on the internet, just clicking whatever they see. And now they will all be going to prison, because they are felons. What a great use of taxpayer dollars.

    1. Re:Millions of children become felons? by nj_peeps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think that is the craziest part! I love how we (the tax payers) are going to have to pay for the wiretaps, personal to comb though the wiretapped info, and cost of court cases that are brought. All so that the corporations can continue to make money by having us buy their products, and not have to pay to gather the evedince against those they deem pirates.

      --
      "Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security" --Benjamin Franklin
    2. Re:Millions of children become felons? by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      And then all those found guilty will never be able to vote again. Coincidence?

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
  17. They know the system is coming down by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In only two states in the Union are you legally secure in pointing a loaded weapon at someone you catch in the act of robbing you. In most parts of the country, if a group of guys are loading the entire contents of your home into a moving truck, you become a felon if you even "shoot to wound" one of them. You can't even knee-cap them with a .22, but copyright owners can get $150k statutory damages on the spot for copying a single throwaway picture from a local rag.

    I'm a conservative and most of the conservatives who know me used to think I was nuts on copyright law until I began to show them how utterly insane our system is. The closest parallel for the common man is a military legal code that won't allow a soldier to rough up a prisoner who he knows has useful intelligence, but that lets field commanders deploy low-yield tactical nukes on villages that remain neutral.

    It's such an inversion of the natural order and justice that it's sickening. We don't allow a man being subjected to an armed robbery to confidently use lethal force on his assailant (note: I am advocating that victims of armed robbery should always be legally authorized to use lethal force to resolve an armed robbery situation), but we let big copyright utterly destroy families over sharing a dozen songs.

    1. Re:They know the system is coming down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laws restricting deadly force stem from anti-escalation theories of jurisprudence, and from the notion that the state has a monopoly on the use of violence. As a practical matter, thieves would shoot their victims first if they knew they could be shot without consequence. Also, as a matter of justice, property crimes need lots of "ordering of the facts" before any decision can be reached (who has distributive rights to the property, for example). It's tricky.

    2. Re:They know the system is coming down by gknoy · · Score: 2

      It's far better to shoot the thieves with a video camera and then use the video evidence to apprehend them later. Physical possessions can (mostly) be replaced. Of course, if they threaten you with bodily harm for filming them ....

    3. Re:They know the system is coming down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a conservative and most of the conservatives who know me used to think I was nuts on copyright law until I began to show them how utterly insane our system is.

      Seems to me you are proving your point to the wrong people, but then again, those people already know the points and don't care because it earns them money. I'm not a voter in USA, but I think no matter what party you vote for, Hollywood and RIAA needs to be stopped. And talking about it doesn't do anything. The public needs to force the government to stop being corrupt and stop these higher powers being able to ruin normal peoples lives for no good reason. Else it will keep happening.

    4. Re:They know the system is coming down by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      In only two states in the Union are you legally secure in pointing a loaded weapon at someone you catch in the act of robbing you.

      For the record, which states are they? Texas must be one and the other?

    5. Re:They know the system is coming down by pem · · Score: 1

      Uh huh. If they're stealing all your stuff at gunpoint, why are they going to let you keep the video camera?

    6. Re:They know the system is coming down by KingMotley · · Score: 2

      Thieves can (mostly) be replaced as well.

    7. Re:They know the system is coming down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, then you'll get in trouble for breaking 'wiretap' laws.

    8. Re:They know the system is coming down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably New Hampshire. I believe they are making it legal to brandish a firearm at someone that is trespassing as well.

    9. Re:They know the system is coming down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are that keen to kill another human being, join the army, or become a merc. There's plenty to go around, and you don't have to rationalize it.

    10. Re:They know the system is coming down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So why do our politicians remain in office for so long?

    11. Re:They know the system is coming down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If they are stealing your stuff at gunpoint then why are they going to let you open your gun safe, remove the trigger lock, load your weapon, and fire it on them?

    12. Re:They know the system is coming down by wardred · · Score: 1

      Nevada, I believe.

    13. Re:They know the system is coming down by Nocturnal+Deviant · · Score: 1

      To be honest, within the next hundred years I'm expecting the USA will have another revolution, at least if this shit keeps up.

      --
      -Noc
    14. Re:They know the system is coming down by Nocturnal+Deviant · · Score: 1

      Legal or not I would shoot the sonofabitch. take me to court and i plead self defense.

      --
      -Noc
    15. Re:They know the system is coming down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I think you're conflating a few different issues here. While it may be true that you can't just start shooting people stealing from your home, there's good reason for that. The law allows us to protect ourselves from imminent bodily harm. When we're talking about property loss, the idea is that we want the police to get involved so as to avoid escalation. Think about it. Do you want someone firing off a pistol in a crowded residential area?

      You mention 'knee-cap[ing]" and "shoot[ing] to wound". Are you aware that the vast majority of bullets don't actually hit their intended targets? Even for well-trained police? The reason you can't just fire off a few rounds at thieves is that the potential collateral damage is much greater. This would be similar to an innocent child being hit by stray bullets fired between gang members (not in intention, but in result. I'm certainly not equating someone who's defending his home with a gang member.)

      Also, the reason we have rules against letting the military "rough up" prisoners is that in the real world, we have this concept of proving guilt BEFORE we punish people. Sure, on TV there are scenes where the military guy JUST KNOWS the terrorist knows where the bomb is. In the real world, there's much more ambiguity. There are many accounts of former interegators agreeing that cajoling and influencing detainees is the most reliable way of extracting information.

      Your whole rant seems rather ill-informed and kind of paranoid. Sorry, someone had to say it.

    16. Re:They know the system is coming down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I understand your point, I think your analogy is a little flawed.

      The laws are in place to prevent collateral damage. You can't advocate your citizens to engage in gunbattles in the street over property. Innocent bystanders might get shot and the entire incident will snowball beyond anyone's control. Not everyone is military-trained, even if they should be, (Note: I am advocating mandatory military service) so they can't be expected to handle a firearm properly. By not assuming the lowest common denominator, you're taking a lot of risks. Also, remember that for state laws, if you make something legal out in the bfe, it's also legal on main street in the capital.

      The issue isn't necessarily with copyright per se, but with the current laws allowing companies to sue for that much in the first place. What the **AA is doing right now is suing for criminal reproduction. When that law was written, it was pre-digital age, and you essentially needed to mimic an entire manufacturing site to do what anyone can accomplish in one click, so asking for hundreds of thousands wasn't so extreme, given you have all that fancy equipment already.

      What there needs to be is a definition of what constitutes a digital good, if it even exists.

    17. Re:They know the system is coming down by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it's also against the constitution. According to this logic, any Militia action would be illegal -- and yet the militia was one of the cornerstones of the founding of the US and the drafting of the constitution. Any anti-escalation implementations of justice have to take this into consideration, and can't just pretend it doesn't exist. The right to bear arms is there -- I think some states have decided to rephrase that as "the right to own weapons of sufficiently limited force as to not cause escalation of force with the authorities or those who are operating outside the law."

      Not saying I condone this; I actually think the anti-escalation theories are solid... but they are incompatible with the foundations of US law and culture. Attempting to pick the best of both camps means you reap the benefits of neither.

    18. Re:They know the system is coming down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should never let the military rough up anyone, terrorist or not. We become no better than they, and I believe that torture is always wrong.

      That said, you expect me to take the risk of getting hurt or killed just because I'm not sure if the robber is just here to steal my property or kill me? I'd rather kill them (I'd rather kill them than lose my property, too). You expect me to risk getting hurt or killed just because a bullet might (but probably won't, especially if you're in your own house) hit an innocent person? There is always a risk of that. Just ban self defense, too!

    19. Re:They know the system is coming down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they decide how much my property is worth to me? They decide how dangerous the situation is? It doesn't work like that. When you're being robbed, you have no idea what is going to happen or what they're thinking. It is far safer to just get rid of them than it is to hold back on the slim chance that someone innocent will get hurt (note: an innocent has already gotten hurt, and that innocent is you). There is always a risk of collateral damage, even when doing self defense.

       

      Note: I am advocating mandatory military service

      Essentially, you're advocating that my body be a slave to the government. No thanks. It isn't "the home of the free" if the government is forcing you to die for their idiotic causes.

    20. Re:They know the system is coming down by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      This is because large companies have more money than you and therefore have more rights than you. This is how the world works today.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    21. Re:They know the system is coming down by Zancarius · · Score: 2

      It's far better to shoot the thieves with a video camera and then use the video evidence to apprehend them later. Physical possessions can (mostly) be replaced. Of course, if they threaten you with bodily harm for filming them ....

      I really hope you're trolling or being sarcastic. Unfortunately, since there are quite a few people who believe as you do, I will offer my response. I don't expect you to agree--and that's the beauty of the world we live in--but this is how I believe.

      If you're at home when an armed robbery occurs, there is no guarantee that you'll be spared your life much less presented with an opportunity to film the assailants. Yes, most criminals are petty thieves simply looking for something they can hock to pay for their drug habits, but if you're willing to bet your life on that, you're either insane or your worldview is severely detached from reality.

      So how do you guarantee your own safety during an armed robbery? You kill the criminal.

      Yes, I know. There's all sorts of arguments against this ranging from "what if a kid finds your gun" to "killing someone isn't right no matter the circumstance." I think they're all wrong, and are clearly the result of either 1) someone living (or wanting to live, God forbid) in a police state or 2) someone who hasn't yet been victimized by a violent crime. It's easy to argue against self defense when you're safe (or are you?) at home, but once it happens, your tune will undoubtedly change. Of course, for those who have been victimized and still feel that self defense is inappropriate, I suppose there isn't much hope.

      As a very tangentially related aside, concealed carry laws (that means carrying a concealed firearm for those of you who don't have anything similar in your jurisdiction) were pushed in New Mexico by the state police and signed into law by a liberal governor. You're required to attend classes on safe handling of a firearm and New Mexico statutes regarding self defense. The motive of the state police? Potential victims are the only first responders of a violent crime; the police simply perform clean-up duty, tap witnesses, and make arrests. It's relatively rare for the police to stop an armed robbery in progress unless the criminal is a total idiot.

      I realize this may open up the discussion for comparing the rates of violent and gun-related crimes in the US to those of other, more "civilized" countries, but it's important to remember that the US is comprised of a significant land area and a highly diverse population, income brackets, and dozens of other variables that undoubtedly factor in to why this is a problem. And no, I don't want to hear about that, either. Probably the closest Western country that comes close in terms of similar income spread, ethnic diversity, and land area but not population density is Australia (sorry, Canada). However, that is another discussion for another time.

      --
      He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
    22. Re:They know the system is coming down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your use of logic is incompatible with Liberal thought processes. Please refrain from committing the same error in the future. Thank you.

    23. Re:They know the system is coming down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this idea is likely to fit in, and I'm sure I heard it somewhere else before:

      If the state fails to provide justice (if what is just or ethical becomes different than what is law) and/or fails to administer public services (like infrastructure) that benefit the workings of society, then that state is no longer needed.

      So why should we continue to support a government when it is no longer beneficial to do so?
      I think that's the question many people are asking or should be asking right now, but as of now only those in a few places are acting on it.

    24. Re:They know the system is coming down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guns used for protecting the home obviously shouldn't be kept unloaded, locked in that kind of a gun safe.

    25. Re:They know the system is coming down by gknoy · · Score: 1

      If they're stealing your stuff at gunpoint, you let them take it, and offer them cookies. Better than dead, and you have insurance. If they aren't waving guns at you, you have no reason to point a gun at THEM (except in very few jurisdictions where lethal force is OK to use to stop crimes against property, rather than people). Moreover, it's much more legal (I assume in most places) to videotape someone than to shoot them (or threaten to shoot them).

    26. Re:They know the system is coming down by gknoy · · Score: 1

      The original poster never said that the thieves were armed, merely that they were loading your stuff into a large truck. (Heck, masquerading as movers would be a pretty ballsy but probably effective con: your neighbors might never realize it wasn't for real.)

      My point was that if you're not being physically threatened, it's better to gather evidence than to dispense vigilante justice. If you ARE being threatened, respond with necessary force to preserve your life and others. I agree wholeheartedly about the value of armed citizens when violent crime happens (even as I realize that this could lead to an escalation in what the criminals assume you are carrying).

  18. Czar here, czar there, czars are effing everywhere by broknstrngz · · Score: 2

    I don't know who the dumbass who first came up with 'czar' is, but I'd sure like to kick his ass. Geeks are very prone to linguistic fetishes. There's nothing romantic about a person in charge of some organisation. And if, somehow, that person has complete and unquestionable authority over something, simply calling him/her a 'czar' won't help. Changing the laws will.

    Excuse my digression.

  19. How long until copyright prisons? by AbrasiveCat · · Score: 2

    When the XXAA upgrade copyright infringement to a felony (to take the enforcement out of the civil court system and the cost out of the XXAA pocket and into ours.) we can be sorta like the old country. They had debtors prisons, we can have copyright prisons. (Maybe they will ship us off to Africa, I think Australia will have the same laws as us when the XXAA can arrange it.)

    1. Re:How long until copyright prisons? by cpghost · · Score: 1

      In many countries, thanks to intense US bullying of the last 10 years, copyright infringement is already a felony. What goes around, comes around.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    2. Re:How long until copyright prisons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Australia does have some copyright freedoms. One is allowed to trans-code music from one media to another. Region-free DVD players are legal and common. Sony et al have had to employ a lot of lawyers to win a single copyright infringement case.

  20. Wiretapping for IP Crimes would spark revolution by inshreds · · Score: 3, Insightful

    By RTFA and clicking through, it quotes, "Wiretap authority for these intellectual property crimes, subject to the existing legal protections that apply to wiretaps for other types of crimes, would assist US law enforcement agencies to effectively investigate those offenses, including targeting organized crime and the leaders and organizers of criminal enterprises," says the new whitepaper.

    If violation of civil liberties extends to wiretapping for suspected IP violations, I predict that many now docile citizens will rise up and wage revolution, both underground and in high court. In the US at least, the (Constitutional 4th Amendment) guards against unreasonable search and seizure by requiring law enforcement to present "reasonable cause" to a judge in order to obtain a warrant. Wiretapping without a warrant is a clear violation of these 4th Amendment rights. I for one, would happy donate to the legal fight to protect these rights. Furthermore, legions of underground resistance will surely fight back as well. The foundations of democracy can only be threatened so far before the people decide enough is enough.

  21. Two Steps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Get these fuckers out of power
    2. Deactivate the DHS

    That still leaves the banksters and plutonium.
    Which begs the question, does anything even matter anymore?

    I mean who cares if you win your trial by jury nullification when you (and the jurors forced to attend) only have two years to live from the radiation fallout?

  22. Re:Personally speaking... by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

    Just because a trade group has lobbying money, shouldn't mean that they get to play with society's rules.

    While I agree with you, the sad fact is that lobbying money is pretty much the only thing that allows one to play with society's rules.

    --
    MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  23. Czar: Great title for a job ina democracy... by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    I kind of like the term czar. Recall that a Czar was considered by the West (at the time) to be an out of touch, despotic ruler of a backward country. I think that description fits the roles that it is being applied to quite nicely.

    Btw, isn't there a clause in the constitution somewhere that says, "no citizen of the US shall bear a title?"

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  24. Re:Wiretapping for IP Crimes would spark revolutio by element-o.p. · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If violation of civil liberties extends to wiretapping for suspected IP violations, I predict that many now docile citizens will rise up and wage revolution, both underground and in high court....The foundations of democracy can only be threatened so far before the people decide enough is enough.

    Wanna bet? The average Joe isn't going to understand the ramifications of undermining the 4th Amendment (see what's going on in our airports right now, if you don't believe me). There will be no uprising because most Americans won't give a rip as long as they can still watch American Idol and eat at McDonalds while driving their 10 gallons/mile (no, that's not a typo) suburban assault^Wutility vehicle. You and I might get in a tizzy about this, but the rank-and-file won't care until/unless it affects them.

    --
    MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  25. Re:Czar: Great title for a job ina democracy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Czar" is not an official title. The official title is "United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator for the Office of Management and Budget".

  26. SLASHDOTTERS UNITE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Petition , stop their power mongering
    elect those that are of a more altruistic nature to lead and vote them in
    demand that anyone in congress and that is a state elected official must keep their fiscal records available
    to show evidence they're not being bribed , and even make it where All elected officials are paid marginally above minimum wage - federal minimal wage , which isnt unrealistic considering they're not producing any goods , they get big tax breaks and free parking at meters .... why do they need more than minimum wage??

    PETITION , ELECT , MAKE CHANGE - DONT B&&(^ ABOUT THE PROBLEM BE A PROBLEM SOLVER !!!

  27. Re:felony charges = trail by jury and all the othe by click2005 · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't that increase the burden of proof? That old 'beyond reasonable doubt' thing that we see in so many films & tv shows.

    --
    I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
  28. Re:Wiretapping for IP Crimes would spark revolutio by lexsird · · Score: 1

    I hate to sound like a troll, but please, revolution? It's not going to happen. If you download a song, you will be painted as some evil criminal, vilified and justly hounded down in the public's eye. This bit about piracy is just a farce to implement their own draconian control measures. The Internet is too much freedom for the masses in their eyes. They need more control. You need controlled. It's for your own good. It's for the children.

    --
    Take the Red Pill.
  29. If a private entity by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    Like an industrial trade group, wants to wire tap me, I reserve the privilege to sue them in open court (the US) and (in some countries) to hire hit men to to assassinate their corporate members. And in the EU to get arrest warrants issued for them.

    Just because you (MPAA, RIAA) are "safely" protected by the bought and paid for US government does not protect you anyplace else!

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    1. Re:If a private entity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a private entity seeks to trespass in my home by wiretapping my line, I reserve the right to shoot the trespasser.

  30. Who'd a thunk it? by Gription · · Score: 2

    I just keep having trouble with the realization that I have lived through the largest destruction of personal liberty (and personal dignity) in US history. I have listened to well read, college educated people who wholeheartedly support suppression of very clearly 1st amendment supported freedom of speech because the message bothers them.

    This entwined with the juggernaut of corporate rights steamrolling over personal rights just because lobbyists write the laws, lobby money pays for the law makers, and people make decisions based on fear leaves me with a country that is just disappointing.
    (Saddest part is you don't see anyone doing it any better...)

    1. Re:Who'd a thunk it? by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      You're not alone. Question is, what are you going to do about it? Bend over and take it or fight it tooth and nail? Now is the time to choose, while you still can.

      "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    2. Re:Who'd a thunk it? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Or you can just face how it was a (self-marvel kind of) myth all along.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    3. Re:Who'd a thunk it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At this point, the only thing that is going to make things better is a radical change in the mindset of the average person, which of course is not going to happen, because people hate change and would rather stick with the inferior system as long as they are not pressed too hard.

      Even if you tried to change something, the masses will likely see you as an enemy. If you try to educate them, they won't listen because American Idol is far more interesting to them than what you have to say. And using force is completely out of the question in this day and age.

    4. Re:Who'd a thunk it? by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      If you believe the cause is right and just, that shouldn't stop you from trying.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    5. Re:Who'd a thunk it? by pwizard2 · · Score: 1

      And using force is completely out of the question in this day and age.

      No, it's because things simply haven't gotten that bad yet. If unemployment gets much worse (the official stats are wrong since they only count those currently receiving benefits. I would estimate the real number being ~15-20% unemployment if you take into account the people who have exhausted their 99 weeks) To make matters worse, many perceive the government as being insulated from real-life problems and it does not help that Obama seems to spend more time golfing and taking vacations than he does actually working. If food and fuel prices keep going up like they have been, then all it would take is a singular triggering event to spark a revolution. For instance, remember how one guy setting himself on fire to protest his standard of living in Tunisia sparked a revolt that toppled the government not only in that country but caused uprisings in several others as well?

      People may care about American Idol, but they still care more about having a job, house, and being able to eat.

      --
      "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
    6. Re:Who'd a thunk it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the problem is that your country doesn't do business with other countries unless they adopt equally stupid laws.

    7. Re:Who'd a thunk it? by russotto · · Score: 1

      You're not alone. Question is, what are you going to do about it? Bend over and take it or fight it tooth and nail? Now is the time to choose, while you still can.

      If you fight it tooth and nail, you'll just break your teeth and wear out your nails. The age of freedom is over; it has neither champion nor significant constituency.

    8. Re:Who'd a thunk it? by BaronHethorSamedi · · Score: 2

      I just keep having trouble with the realization that I have lived through the largest destruction of personal liberty (and personal dignity) in US history.

      Perhaps that's because, unless you are approximately 200 years old, you haven't.

      Have you or anyone you know ever been forced into a one-sided labor contract for a term of years?
      Have you or anyone you know ever actually been forced into servitude and treated as the property of another person?
      Have you or anyone you know ever been denied the right to vote based on your sex?
      Have you or anyone you know ever been forced by law to undergo surgical sterilization based on a mental or physical handicap, ethnicity, or perceived antisocial tendencies?
      Have you or anyone you know ever been forbidden by law to marry because your intended was of another race?
      Have you or anyone you know ever been forced to relocate your entire family to a camp based on your ethnicity?

      Every generation has its problems. America has in the past been guilty of practices far more dehumanizing than anything that's going on presently. While you may feel the urgency of your political views (and certainly you are entitled to), I think that in historical terms, the United States today are at a high water-mark in terms of both personal liberty and personal dignity. As to the "suppression of First Amendment freedoms," I always have a hard time viewing such claims, when expressed over the internet, as anything other than hyperbole. Really, just by dint of having access to the internet, we have more freedom to speak, and more power to reach listeners, than any other generation in human history. Use the First Amendment freedoms you enjoy, go and read some history, and then come back and complain about how bad things are these days. Is there room for progress? Of course--there always is. Personally though, looking back over the past several hundred years, I think Americans have never had it so good.

    9. Re:Who'd a thunk it? by symbolic · · Score: 1

      BS. The one true freedom that people fail to realize, and fail to use, is the freedom to say "no," as in, "Thanks for the crappy stuff you continually produce, but no - keep it. And I'll keep my money."

    10. Re:Who'd a thunk it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps that's because, unless you are approximately 200 years old, you haven't.

      Grandparent said destruction, not starting from zero.

      I think that in historical terms, the United States today are at a high water-mark in terms of both personal liberty and personal dignity

      That is exactly the problem. The tide has come in and maxed out, now the tide is receding and things are gradually mutating into a bastardized version of the past. In the past Freedom of Speech was inherent, all you had to do was step outside and whisper. Nowadays, there are omnidirectional microphones that pick out a single person from a crowd in a football stadium regardless of where they are sitting. The tools of oppression have improved so that only minor losses of privacy and liberty can be enforced by the law with a previously impossible brutal efficiency.

    11. Re:Who'd a thunk it? by russotto · · Score: 1

      BS. The one true freedom that people fail to realize, and fail to use, is the freedom to say "no," as in, "Thanks for the crappy stuff you continually produce, but no - keep it. And I'll keep my money."

      Inconveniences you and causes them no significant harm. In fact, as we know, the xxAAs use any sales drop as evidence of piracy and thus reason for passing more oppressive laws. Doesn't matter how much of their stuff I fail to buy or pirate, I'm still subject to the laws.

    12. Re:Who'd a thunk it? by symbolic · · Score: 1

      I hear those argument all the time - I don't buy it. Your position has been used as an unfortunate justification to continue escalating this war on freedom. If people would just let the market work, it will. The only factor that has had a major impact is the fact that people can walk away with copies of something with comparatively little effort - many have the mistaken belief that this affords them a level of entitlement that simply doesn't exist.

    13. Re:Who'd a thunk it? by russotto · · Score: 1

      I hear those argument all the time - I don't buy it. Your position has been used as an unfortunate justification to continue escalating this war on freedom. If people would just let the market work, it will.

      The people who are escalating the war on freedom and not letting the market work are not those holding my position. They are the music and movie industry people and their pet legislators who are making these laws. If tomorrow, everyone who cared about these issues stopped buying anything from those companies, and stopped copying their products as well, all that would change is they'd use the slight dip in sales to bolster their arguments about piracy

    14. Re:Who'd a thunk it? by symbolic · · Score: 1

      If tomorrow, everyone who cared about these issues stopped buying anything from those companies, and stopped copying their products as well, all that would change is they'd use the slight dip in sales to bolster their arguments about piracy

      I've heard that argument too - while this may happen initially (and for good reason), there will be a point at which the false piracy claims can no longer be rationally justified. It is part of a corrective process. Nothing can change if the piracy doesn't stop.

  31. Re:Czar: Great title for a job ina democracy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Technically wouldn't she be a czarina since she is a woman?

  32. Re:Personally speaking... by Demonantis · · Score: 1

    I completely agree with that should be how the legal system should work. It would mean that other laws are struck down though like environmental damage because it wouldn't cause direct harm. It is tricky where to draw the line. What benefits society to the greatest extent would definitely be the best, but again is hard to define. Who has the most money just simply does not work. I would say the best treatment would be to stop supporting these organizations with your money and your interest. Look for free music that people release and support them in what they do by listening to it and passing it around. It is like Microsoft where they would prefer you to pirate their product instead of using a competitors if that is what it comes to.

  33. WTF? Just "religious terrorists"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please stand up and allow me to confirm that your "ass" and "elbow" signs are in the correct locations.

  34. Re:Personally speaking... by Demonantis · · Score: 1

    ...draw the line on what is harm. Should have read what I wrote before posting.

  35. Re:Wiretapping for IP Crimes would spark revolutio by xMrFishx · · Score: 1

    I don't know, $100/barrel (or more) might make the amount of expendable income average families have suddenly dissappear. Then realisation of how much everything else costs should hit home. It'll take alot longer and alot more before anything happens in the U$A, but to quote a certain Smith: "It is inevitable". I'm not sure how printing more money can fix that.

  36. Revolution? Pshaw. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, what do you think this is, Egypt or something?

  37. Re:Personally speaking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    US prisons are now private companies. It's in their interest to have their buddy corporatocracies put as many people behind bars as possible. It only costs something like $200k/year to keep a black kid locked up, who's done nothing more than caught smoking pot. Tax dollars from us to our corporate overlords.

    Obama was put in power by the media, they're merely calling in all the favors.

  38. Re:Masses by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2

    I think that's just about to change.

    The "heartland" of America gets its news ... wait for it ... from the plot stories of their TV shows. So when entire episodes are starting to feature the Homeland Security doings, Mr. & Ms Viewer are just about to say "wait, they're doing that?"

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  39. 'Hollywood's PATRIOT Act.' -- pretty pejorative! by unil_1005 · · Score: 1

    Really, it can't be all that bad...

    ...can it?

  40. Re:Wiretapping for IP Crimes would spark revolutio by ryants · · Score: 1

    I predict that many now docile citizens will rise up and wage revolution, both underground and in high court.

    Oh wait, you were serious. Let me laugh even harder.

    --

    Ryan T. Sammartino
    "Ancora imparo"

  41. Virus to fix the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm waiting for an anonymous style group to make a stuxnet style virus that uses a variety of 0 day exploits that forces everyone that uses a federal and state level computer to download a song and a movie. Forget breaking a few centrifuges, they could try to break the system.

  42. Recording Audio on Rhapsody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How are they going to stop us sneaky users who know how to use Wavepad (by NCH) to record audio as it's played from a 20 song / month free account by Rhapsody? I can play songs there for free and make MP3s all I want. I could come to school and setup there and do it with a completely new account and email address. No one can touch me.

  43. Re:Wiretapping for IP Crimes would spark revolutio by dbet · · Score: 1

    You don't need "revolution", only violence.

  44. soooooo..... by night_flyer · · Score: 1, Troll

    How's all that hopey changey doing for you?

    --


    Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
    Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
  45. Re:Wiretapping for IP Crimes would spark revolutio by Thuktun · · Score: 1

    If violation of civil liberties extends to wiretapping for suspected IP violations, I predict that many now docile citizens will rise up and wage revolution, both underground and in high court.

    Only if it prevents them from TIVOing the newest episode of "Three and a Half Lost Heroes of Beverly Hills".

  46. Re:Personally speaking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are so right it makes me want to puke.

  47. Re:Czar here, czar there, czars are effing everywh by russotto · · Score: 1

    I don't know who the dumbass who first came up with 'czar' is, but I'd sure like to kick his ass.

    In its modern sense, that would be either Gaius Julius or Gaius Octavius Thurinus (later Augustus). And they've been dead for a while, but either one could have kicked your ass 6 ways from Sunday.

  48. Re:Wiretapping for IP Crimes would spark revolutio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As many others have, I disagree greatly. However, I do foresee a situation wherein this would be the beginning of the end of the IP juggernaut. It would likely be when lots of people start noticing their family ends up going to jail for looking at shows on YouTube. The result would essentially be large-scale backlash, either against the current politicians (and hopefully up-and-coming politicians from younger generations familiar with the Internet would use this as a very strong point in their elections), or against the companies pushing for such (and leading to the law not being particularly used).

    "Don't download X, you'll go to jail" could very easily change into, "don't watch X, it's too expensive and if you download it you'll go to jail" oh-so-easily, if spun right...

  49. Campaign finance reform fixes EVERYTHING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All energies should be directed at stopping campaign contributions and seedy lobbying activities once and for all.

    We keep responding to the consequences of a system blatently structured to activly award corruption in the form of legislative action taken in response to contributions to fund (re)election.

    I would gladly pay more taxes to publically fund political contests if it meant an end to this nonsense once and for all. As it stands right now the politician who sells themselves (Also known as "whoring") the most raises the most money.

  50. wait a gol durn minute by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    Hollywood is a *business* (or collection of businesses). They aren't ALLOWED a "patriot act". What's next, questioning our patriotism if we don't go to their movies?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  51. ya know slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ya know i just have to say something here...

    for a community of so-called geniuses that seem to enjoy heralding themselves as being on the cutting edge of shit, all of you certainly seemed way fuckin behind, or below the curve on this one.

    good job slashdot. keep it real dawgs.

  52. Bad change could be good for us by bo1024 · · Score: 1

    The big companies/RIAA/MPAA pushing for stricter copyright enforcement, felony charges for copyright violators, etc. are wrong.

    So wrong, in fact, it might just be enough to save us from them.

    It was one thing when they targeted poor college students on bittorrent. How many average Americans or other companies are going to stand up for them? It was a great way for the RIAA, for instance, to make a killing. (Off of creative content they never created, by the way -- what's the point of copyright anyway?)

    But this is a whole new ballgame. When you try to make showing a music video on youtube illegal (which it would be under these laws, as far as I can tell), suddenly you've turned 90% of America against you. When you stop entrapping people by offering up torrents, and start using the word "wiretapping", you move objections from the underground nerdosphere up into the mainstream. And most importantly, you've stirred up till-now sleeping giants in Google and the other companies mentioned.

    The folly of the MPAA etc in trying to extend these bans (surely, if people can't stream movies, they'll start spending thousands more on DVDs!) may have caused them to overstep their bounds just enough to ruin them in the copyright wars. Once other corporations with profits on the line get involved, the playing field evens up a little. When that happens, there's a chance for reasonableness to win out.

    So, I'm not saying I applaud these new initiatives by our government, but it's about time copyright law got some negative publicity and opposition by companies with $$. Let's hope some positives come out of this.

  53. Re:Czar: Great title for a job ina democracy... by belg4mit · · Score: 1

    It's been in use since at least the energy crisis:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Czar

    --
    Were that I say, pancakes?
  54. Copyright cops online? Maybe not. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    What isn't mentioned, is how a member of Congress grilled this new IP "czar" (how I hate that term) about how they bungled the child pornography raid and took down more than 84,000 innocent websites, replacing them with a page that said they had been taken down for child pornography! Talk about class-action material for suing the government!

    The Congresswoman made the Czar look like an idiot in front of everyone else. Not to mention that the Czar was chastised for acting illegally in that an other matters.

    The fact that this new "czar" might want it does not, by a long shot, mean she'll get it. She's batting about .100 right now.

  55. Re:Masses by user+no.+590291 · · Score: 1

    I've noticed the TSA getting lampooned a lot (e.g. "Cat people, dog people" "We all look the same way nude." "Good point") -- and have seen some less than flattering portrayals of Fatherland^W Homeland Security on popular TV. Now this could be all part of a Hollywood conspiracy to let the hoi polloi blow off some steam with comedy, but it could also be a reflection of public opinion tilting against the insidious creeping fascism that threatens to blanket us in the absence of popular resistance.

  56. 1+1=2 by Ph4ntom74 · · Score: 1

    Patriot Act + Net Patriot Act = Welcome to the 4th Reich Nazi America, imperialism, totalitarianism, lost of FREEDOMS!

  57. Re:Masses by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    I'll go further.

    I'l leave it as an exercise which way the causal sequence runs, but I feel that such tv episodes are a profound mechanism for social processing. While geeks can do it within a few weeks after reading a couple of SF stories or novels, it seems to take a many years for society as a whole to get there. Arguably it took twenty years for society to really process sexuality issues.

    Now if "we're taking on safety vs security", I'd start the clock at 9-11 and say we're half way there at the 10th anniversary this year. But maybe it will happen in another ten years.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  58. mod parent up by unity100 · · Score: 1

    very well formulated and pragmatic post. please mod parent up.

  59. More Fed control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is simply anotehr method for the Fed to get into further control of the interenet: copyright protections are a federal matter, and if streaming video could in any way be considered a copyright violation, this gives the fed another excuse to get a warrant to tap your activities.
    Look at it as a way to combat Wikileaks, which has scared the shit out of the Obama administration. Any excuse at all to tap into anyone in the least suspect is all they need. Beware.

  60. White-collar crime is CRIME by Steve+Hamlin · · Score: 1

    1. Fraud and other white-collar crimes are estimated to divert about 6% of gross revenue. That's more than $700 billion a year in the U.S. , or the equivalent of the U.S. Department of Defense's annual budget.

    2. Economic damage is almost never 100% recoverable, particularly in criminal cases. Did Enron shareholders get made whole?

    3. White-collar crimes affects people as much as violent crime, although conventional constructions tend to focus on violent crime. Would you rather be robbed once, or lose most of your life savings to a ponzi scheme? Has the recent financial crisis not caused direct harm to anyone?

    4. The deterrence effect of criminally punishing white-collar criminals reduces occurrences, reducing future costs to society. Put a senior executive in prison, and it changes how corporate culture operates for the better (at least for that industry)

    For a great overview on whether white-collar criminal penalties are too hard or too soft, see this article from Fraud Magazine