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."

Comments

Wise move?

[Kjella]

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....

Re:Wise move?

[cpu6502]

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.

Re:Wise move?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Wise move?

[morgauxo]

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

Re:Wise move?

[erroneus]

"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.

Re:Wise move?

[Anthony Mouse]

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.

Good luck with that...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

'understand' ?

[unity100]

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.

Re:'understand' ?

[Haffner]

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...

Re:'understand' ?

[spidercoz]

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!

Meanwhile in hell...

[Drakkenmensch]

Joseph McCarthy is doing a happy jig.

Re:Meanwhile in hell...

[cpu6502]

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.

Re:Meanwhile in hell...

[TheSpoom]

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?

Re:Meanwhile in hell...

[spidercoz]

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.

Re:Change

[Desler]

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

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

They know the system is coming down

[MikeRT]

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.

Re:They know the system is coming down

[gknoy]

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 ....

Re:They know the system is coming down

[KingMotley]

Thieves can (mostly) be replaced as well.

Re:They know the system is coming down

[Zancarius]

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.

Czar here, czar there, czars are effing everywhere

[broknstrngz]

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.

How long until copyright prisons?

[AbrasiveCat]

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.)

Wiretapping for IP Crimes would spark revolution

[inshreds]

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.

Re:Millions of children become felons?

[nj_peeps]

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.

Re:Wiretapping for IP Crimes would spark revolutio

[element-o.p.]

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.

Re:This is Good!

[infalliable]

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?

Re:Change

[FatSean]

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...

Who'd a thunk it?

[Gription]

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...)

Re:Who'd a thunk it?

[BaronHethorSamedi]

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.

Re:Masses

[TaoPhoenix]

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?"