Slashdot Log In
Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Copyright Cops
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri Sep 12, 2008 07:54 AM
from the keystone-of-the-law dept.
from the keystone-of-the-law dept.
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved the EIPA (the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008), which would create copyright cops. And these cops would take over the RIAA's War on Sharing by filing civil lawsuits and using civil forfeiture laws to take any and all computers engaged in infringement. Worse, they would even seize computers (such as servers or database farms) that house the data of innocent people, and these people would not have any right to get their data back. At best the 'virtual bystanders' who happened to have data on a computer used for infringement could get a protective order saying that no one should go rummaging through their stuff. Perhaps the only good thing in the bill is that they've excluded DMCA circumvention from the list of grounds for seizure. So while the Senators believe this is needed to combat foreign copyright infringement cartels, it's entirely likely that innocent people will be harmed by this law."
Related Stories
Submission: Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Copyright Cops by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Citizens Demand To See Secret ACTA Treaty 223 comments
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "One hundred groups of concerned citizens have united to demand a look at the secret ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) treaty and have drafted a letter to their representatives asking for information. We've discussed ACTA before, including what are believed to be parts of ACTA that lawmakers are trying to get a head start on."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Foreign copyright infringement? (Score:5, Insightful)
I only scanned the article, but I don't understand how US pseudo-cops seizing US computers and servers is going to stop foreign copyright infringement. Unless these are somehow international cops, but I doubt that.
Re:Foreign copyright infringement? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Foreign copyright infringement? (Score:5, Funny)
Team America: World Copyright Police. (Puppets of the RIAA/MPAA, how fitting.)
Parent
Re:Foreign copyright infringement? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that we should be worried about... it's this utter bullshit of tax payer dollars investigating civil matters. If the RIAA wants to fucking sue, they can do it with their own fucking money, worthless bastards. Why should *my* tax dollars be used to boost the profits of *any* corporation?
And yes, there's a difference between incentive and handout.
Parent
Re:Foreign copyright infringement? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should *my* tax dollars be used to boost the profits of *any* corporation?
Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, the **AA's. If anything, they seem to be getting better at propping the big companies up before they collapse. And to answer your question, it's because your government values said corporations more than it values you or your tax dollars. And they value the companies more because a fancy dinner party and sponsorship for the party convention is worth much more than the votes of the small part of the population that both understands and cares about what's going on.
Parent
Re:Foreign copyright infringement? (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that bailing out the loan shark does nothing whatsoever for the economy as the home-"owners" will still go under in massive numbers and thus their purchasing power will be reduced to near zero
How wrong you are. If you don't backstop the investors, all that delicious foreign capital the US has become addicted to would evaporate overnight as they went running for the hills. And given the US economy has been running on credit for, what, 20 or 30 years? means that the US economy would basically grind to a halt if that happened.
Incidentally, I agree, they absolutely need to provide some sort of relief to homeowners (hence rumours that the fed might ask F&F to halt foreclosures for 90 days... although that's just putting a finger in the dam), but there's no way they can afford to prop up every failing mortgage that's out there.
Parent
Your tax money at work (Score:5, Insightful)
So, in a nutshell, you now pay for the RIAA to prop up their outdated and failed business model. Well, not really, you pay for people who do it for the RIAA. I kinda fail to see the public interest. Because that's what tax money should be spent on.
When I want to wage a war against my neighbor because I think he might do something illegal (ya know, he's one of those $minorty_group, and we all know they $stereotype), the public doesn't care, as they should. I can't go to the police station and demand that they install some surveillance cams and send a car by his house every couple minutes. Actually, I might have a suit for harrassment on my ass for doing so myself.
Can someone explain why the RIAA is entitled to harrassing people, now not only with their own witchhunters but by people that YOU pay for?
Re:Your tax money at work (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you're being a little unfair. Considering the amount of bribe-money that's changed hands, they're entitled to a few laws which serve only them and allow them to ride roughshod over the public interest. Geez. Stop being so selfish!
Parent
Re:Your tax money at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Your tax money at work (Score:4, Insightful)
And if the function is no longer valid, they should die.
Businesses that serve nobody but themselves have to die. To survive, they have to do business, contribute to the exchange of goods and services and generally keep money in circulation. If they don't, they're leeching from the rest of the economy and are, essentially, hurting the economy.
Other companies that do contribute to the economy will take their place, so don't worry about the jobs. Few business models go without leaving a spot for someone to take. It might require a change in business practices, it might require a change in product, but over time something new will fill the empty slot.
Parent
Re:Your tax money at work (Score:5, Informative)
Which is basically a form of command economy called socialism.
No it isn't: It's a form of command economy called fascism.
Parent
Re:Your tax money at work (Score:5, Insightful)
What economic system do you prefer to capitalism?
Compared to what we have in the US? I would rather have capitalism.
Parent
Re:Your tax money at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Your tax money at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you even ask the question? The RIAA, etc, aren't Capitalists - they are using the law to create and extend an artificial monopoly, not relying upon the free market. The poster you are attacking is pointing out that they are not Capitalists, that they will try to spin this as just being how good little Capitalists act, but it will be a lie, and so your post shows you generally fall for the lie and start a squabble with people who actually understand the situation. The RIAA wins because that squabbling undermines the people who would organize against the recording industry's version of State Socialism.
Parent
Re:Your tax money at work (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know what the economy system we're currently in should be called (the economic side of fascism comes close), but it certainly isn't capitalism.
In a capitalist system, suppliers invent, streamline their production methods and improve their products to compete against each other in the attempt to make the customer choose them over their competitors. The customers in turn, collectively decide which product suits their needs best and buys this one, thus giving the supplier that matches their needs best the upper hand. Suppliers that supply what is in demand will thrive, those that supply what isn't, perish.
You can't tell me that THIS system is currently in place, can you?
Parent
This is the conclusion of Capitalist Democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
What else do you expect from Capitalist Democracy though?
Consider:
How can you believe in Capitalism if you don't accept that rich people and companies have the right to give large sums to politicians? Given that they have that right, how can you expect them to do anything other than lobby for their own self-interest?
Under Capitalism there will always be this pressure. In any society economic power is the most important power; whoever controls the means of production (showing my socialist bias, I know :) ) controls the shape of society.
Maybe if we moved to a system of workers co-operatives? If we banned the stock market and made all organisations owned by the workers then the concentration of wealth wouldn't be as severe. I'm not arguing for monolithic socialist/maoist/stanlist monopolies, just the same system we have now with everything owned by workers instead of financial institutions.
I think it'd come closer to the ideal of companies competing in free markets to win over consumers on the basis of better/cheaper products. I doubt it could be worse than the current situation!
Parent
Capitalism ALWAYS leads to socialism for the rich (Score:4, Insightful)
Without proper regulation and oversight, capitalism leads to socialism, but only for the rich and politically connected. Capitalism allows the unfettered accumulation of capital. Capital equals power to change the system, either through economic coercion or manipulation of the legal system, which brings in more capital in a never ending positive feedback loop. The more money you have, the more control you have over other people's lives. We not only accept this basic injustice, we celebrate it as good, just, and moral. It isn't, any more than using any other form of power to screw people over.
Parent
Re:Your tax money at work (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't really understand that part of capitalism.
If free market is supposed to regulate everything, why shouldn't it buy laws and police?
Any interventionism is supposed to harm the good effects expected from free market.
In my personal opinion, capitalism, if it gives enough freedom to the corporations, can only lead to this kind of situation, because money tends to lump together, and everything can be bought by money. Adding 2 + 2, _everything_ can be bought by money, including laws and police, even against previous laws. You just need a large enough amount of money. In _my_ opinion, the only way to prevent that is to sacrifice corporations freedom to ensure the freedom of the individuals.
Aside from that, I don't get why people in the US call "Socialist" anything they dislike regarding politics, either.
Socialism does not like corporations, period.
For a socialist, state monopolies are good, cooperatives are good, and not much else.
Please elaborate why you think the "intellectual property" concept is compatible with socialism.
I don't think it does, because it grants private monopolies, with the word "private" being the key. Private is not a good word in socialism, collective or state managed, good, private, bad.
Anyhow, would you explain so I learn something?
Parent
Re:Your tax money at work (Score:5, Insightful)
No one is saying to do away with Capitalism. They are saying to reduce Corporatism.
Where large corporations put up large artificial barriers to anyone wishing to compete with them or even modify their products to fit one's lifestyle . Or where they get to enact laws that are clearly in their interest and ignore those that are not.
Parent
Re:Your tax money at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Capitalism is a great economy system, we just have to return to it.
Capitalism means that the customer decides what is built. Indirectly, but he does. By buying the item that fits his needs the most. When you think the goods that are offered aren't what people want, open a business and produce what they want. They will abandon their old ways and they will buy your goods instead. The other companies would have to give them what they want, too, or lose business.
Today, though, we do not live in this system anymore. Take movie players (DVD, BluRay, whatever). Does any of those allow you to copy your discs? No. Would you like to? Sure. Would you buy one that allows you to copy your discs? Of course! But you must not build a BluRay player that allows that. If you do, you don't get the right to use the BluRay "seal of approval". Creating your own format for your player doesn't help either, since no content provider would offer content for your player.
The customer cannot choose what he wants. It is simply not offered.
And you get that a lot. This is not capitalism.
Parent
Re:Your tax money at work (Score:5, Interesting)
You talk about "paying for" these people, what a joke. You have no choices anymore. Look at the housing market. Years of construction, millions of people paying every month for years, and with the stroke of a pen, money is printed, currency is devalued, public wealth is transferred to ensure all those defaulted loans are covered. The white collar crooks get the loan money repaid by the government and more importantly, by the time the money becomes utterly devalued, they'll own the deeds for half the country.
If you want to understand what's going on around you, I'd suggest you start reading up about the Great Depression.
Parent
Re:Your tax money at work (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, you write letters. But when circumstances are such that citizens of other nations would be engaged in meaningful revolution, you either steal televisions from each other or hide, waiting for your masters to reassert control. You're a bunch of cowards.
Just once, I'd like to read about a young person losing the plot and shooting white collar criminals, or people who manufacture weapons of mass destruction, or corrupt political figures instead of shooting up their classmates. Never happens though. But keep writing letters...
Parent
Re:Your tax money at work (Score:5, Interesting)
So, can I ask, how many revolutions you've actually been a part of, shieldwolf? Seriously, it's easy to sit back and say "I wouldn't stand for that" but the simple fact is, you can only say that if you actually live somewhere that has it better than we here in the USA have.
I spend a lot of my time volunteering and trying to change those around me through education and I still don't get anywhere. I have said, when the time comes, I will resort to true revolution, but honestly, that time hasn't come. We have a system that is clearly broken, but violence isn't going to fix it unless you kill everyone who has ever had any interest in power. You can't just take out one or two people, you have to take out millions. That's simply not realistic if you expect to be considered a "good guy" at the end of it all. Revolutions have a time and place, but the fact is, in the USA, this is not the time. I can see it being the time in the next generation, possibly two, but not now. Things just aren't that bad, generally speaking. People still have jobs (mostly) and can still feed themselves. Despite what it seems like here on slashdot, people don't fear their government, and don't think there's any reason to fear their government. That may be the fact that we are "fat and lazy" or it may be that there truly is no reason to fear, yet. We still have opportunities to change things. Economics is cyclic, so expecting some big revolution based upon a downturn such as we have right now is just unrealistic. It hasn't truly hurt that many people. Yes it has affected most of us, but it hasn't put enough of us in bread lines to cause true panic, and it's not likely to do so.
As for education, it doesn't require going into debt or being "indoctrinated". Your lack of respect for people who can teach you things speaks volumes, though. Yes you may be smarter than they are, but that doesn't make them any less worthy of respect. Sure there are some professors and "educators" who aren't worthy of respect but those truly aren't the norm.
Parent
Re:Your tax money at work (Score:5, Insightful)
You start with the idea that money is the goal. For centuries and even now music made by musicians had music as a final goal, not money.
In the past economies have blossomed without the need of copyright.
Also you seem to think that the copyright is there to protect the business. It isn't. It is there to protect the right to copy. Solving the issue is not by not copying things anymore, but by making it legal to do so.
In general: if the majority does something that is illegal, then it is not the people that are wrong, it is the law that is wrong.
Parent
Re:Your tax money at work (Score:4, Insightful)
In general: if the majority does something that is illegal, then it is not the people that are wrong, it is the law that is wrong.
So tell us: what proportions of the population of your country do you think:
Slashdot is not exactly a representative forum on this subject, and across the population as a whole, I suspect the answers are not what you think they are.
Parent
Re:Your tax money at work (Score:4, Interesting)
Many don't even know that what they do is breaking the law. Even more would be really surprised to learn that what they have been doing for ages has become illegal suddenly.
Copyright changed a fair lot in the last decade. What used to be legal and was actually common practice for decades is now a big nono. I'm fairly sure if people did realize, the outcry would be quite noticable. Take someone who uses some tool to break copy protection on a movie or CD to make a copy for a friend, just like he did with video and audio tapes for years. With the difference that he didn't have to break any kind of protection, but he doesn't even notice this either. He just knows that this program can copy the DVD while the other one cannot. So he uses the program that can. Legality? I guess he just thinks that the program simply can't do it for some odd reason, or that he can't figure out how to make it work. That one can, so he uses that one. Period.
Parent
Re:Your tax money at work (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that technology has changed where you needed a $1 million dollar recording studio twenty years ago we can now use a $2000 PC and importantly you get the same quality of music out of it. The advent of the internet means it is now relatively cheap to get your message out. I believe Sandi Thom showed just how easy it was to gain a large audience through the internet. On top of this technology has made copying intellectual property very cheap (it costs around 10p to copy a DVD.)
Their business model isnâ(TM)t making things and selling them (such a description covers every single business model I can think of.) Their business model is being a middle man in the access to music. They were able to control the supply of music to the masses and in doing so make money from it. Technology has meant they have lost the ability to control that, rather than update their business model and try adding value to their product they continually attack their customer base and work to devalue their business model (paper cd cases, drm, etc..)
Parent
You Think This is About Business Models? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that simple. Intellectual property is a relatively new property concept, historically--several hundred years old at most. It goes against human nature. In theory, it incentivizes the creation of new works, but in practice it appears to amp up the noise without significantly improving the signal. It leads to breakdowns of the free market because it is not enforced by physical reality (i.e. there is no scarcity imposed by a lack of raw materials or whatever). Because the scarcity is artificial, the pricing is impossible to truly justify.
There are a number of examples in modern economy that follow the "patron model" of producing works, where a wealthy person or company pays for the creation of intellectual property which is freely distributed in promoting some tangible good (hardware, say). So the present intellectual property model is not the only way to encourage innovation. Furthermore, the Constitution sets aside intellectual property for the advancement of science and useful arts; based on the limited mediums to which it applied (and the limited times as well), our present approach of patenting and copyrighting everything that might be the least bit profitable is probably in violation of the spirit of that law.
This isn't about propping up broken business models, at least not exclusively. This is about preserving a broken way of thinking--a way that is incompatible with most people's sense of fairness. What you should hvae observed is that there'd be no reason for copyright cops if copyright as a concept weren't failing spectacularly, a casualty of the Information Age.
When your choice is between turning to Gestapo tactics to enforce a law that is increasingly problematic from both a theoretical and a practical standpoint, or recognizing the law as so out-of-touch with reality that it's time to move on, I'd say that choosing the former is a genuine act of evil.
Parent
Re:You Think This is About Business Models? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with much of what you wrote, so I'll concentrate on just the interesting parts or disagreements here.
Oh and I hope you like what those wealthy people like, because only what they like is going to get made. Sometimes you will, most of the time you probably won't.
In this discussion, the behaviour of rich Big Media organisations and rich politicians is being criticised from all over the place. At the same time, the critics seem to be proposing abolishing the primary mechanism through which average people can collaborate to support producing works. Irony, much? :-)
Most people's sense of "fairness" is "take all I can, screw the other guy."
Here, we disagree. I think most people's sense of fairness does mean compensating someone to a reasonable extent for their efforts.
IME, the big objections in copyright debates are usually about the middlemen such as the **AA organisations, who have taken advantage of copyright laws that are in their own interests, while somehow simultaneously avoiding other laws that are designed to constrain pricing in non-competitive markets. The result is that people who are not the artists are selling artistic works at artificially high prices. Consumers see no reason they should pay a middleman who they perceive to be ripping them off, and view copyright infringement via downloads and such as screwing the unfair middleman, and therefore ethical.
Of course, this is a problem with the current implementation of copyright, not with the underlying principle. In previous discussions, we (various Slashdot posters) have suggested a range of alternatives that are faithful to the basic idea of copyright, but would shift the balance way back towards benefiting the artist and the consumer rather than the middleman, leaving the latter to make a profit only if they provide a valuable service to artists and/or consumers in a competitive market. If we moved back in that direction, I don't think most people would consider it fair to rip works at the expense of the people who actually worked hard to make them, and I think the law in this area would deserve a lot more respect generally.
Parent
Re:Your tax money at work (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't care. I care about my rights to privacy. I care about my tax dollars being wasted to protect outmoded business models while critical infrastructure is in shambles. I care about my fellow citizens being harassed by corporate interests.
Functioning, profit earning markets require neither copyright nor intellectual property. The goods still have to be manufactured even if no one owns that right exclusively. The original copyright agreement gave the inventor a short term exclusivity (ten years then which should equate to about one year now) so they could be first to market. It did not grant perpetual ownership nor ownership of the idea itself. Corporations have repeatedly bribed our government into extending and modifying the terms of that societal contract in their favor. People now ignore the contract, and are wholly justified in doing so.
Parent
Re:Your tax money at work (Score:5, Insightful)
The business model isn't outdated because it relies on laws to be profitable. As you point out, many businesses do that. "Selling" music isn't outdated. What's outdated is the model of distribution. Who needs a studio to record or distribute his music? I don't.
The refusal, of artists and customrs alike, of big studios and their business model comes from years of feeling ripped off. We have a global market but I can't buy CDs from US bands that aren't distributed in Europe, and neither can I buy US shows on DVD when they appear on DVD in the US. Because of artificial boundaries and territory protection. When the CD emerged, we were told the CDs are hellish expensive because it's a new technology and they will become cheaper when the sales pick up, we gotta wait 'til records disappear and CDs become the medium of choice. Well, records disappeared, CDs became the only medium and they got more expensive.
Instead we got some insane protection mechanisms that broke any standard in the (red) book and the silver discs (they are NOT CDs, I don't want to get sued by Phillips for using their trademarked name "compact disc" for these abominations) didn't play in some players. Could we return those faulty discs? No, we were told to get a new player. If we weren't accused of attempted copyright infringment by returning the disc after allegedly copying it.
Sales plummeted. If you ask me, quite logically so. I don't buy something when I can neither be sure that it works nor be able to return the item if it doesn't. Well, "plummet" is maybe the wrong term. Despite a global decline in economy and many companies in the red, the music industry still went on strong in the black, yet they cried about dwindling sales and of course those pesky pirates are to blame. Not a copy protection that alienates users and cranking out shovelware music nobody wanted to listen to.
Certainly, people copied songs. Some copied entire libraries and looking back at the years around the 2000, it was out of hands. But why did it come to that? It's not like people are hard wired to take stuff without paying. If anything, we've been told from birth that taking anything requires you to buy it. People also usually have moral problems with stealing. So maybe you can explain why they didn't when they copied music?
Today, though, we have two fronts colliding. And neither side is willing to give an inch or only a fraction thereof. A customer is treated like a criminal, while the studios are seen as big, greedy, law-buying monoliths that don't give a rat's ass about their customers. Neither side would willingly offer the other even so much as a glass of water if they should be drowning.
The problem is, though, you can't force anyone to buy. If you want me to buy something, you have to offer me something I want. I don't want music on silver discs that don't play in my hardware. I don't want music on my computer that plays only on this machine and only as long as you allow me to. I don't want DVDs where I can't ignore the ads. I don't want BluRay discs that "fuse" with my player and don't allow me to play them in a different one. I don't want to wait to see a movie that has already been available for months in some other country and could easily be sold here.
That's what I meant when I said outdated. You cannot enforce something against your customers. Your customer sees that it is possible to offer him music without restriction, to offer him movies that give him the movie only and not some unskippable ads and that plays wherever he wants, and he gets it as soon as it is out. Of course people will start looking for ways to get rid of those limitations and they will find them. That they don't have to pay money for it is maybe an added bonus, but usually not the deciding factor.
If you want to survive "legally", without resorting to actually waging a war against your customers, which will hurt you in the long run more than them, you have to offer what your customer wants. Only then he will buy.
Parent
Minor correction (Score:5, Insightful)
...it's entirely likely that only innocent people will be harmed by this law.
There, I fixed it.
You hear the laughter? (Score:4, Insightful)
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
[knock knock]
Hang on, someone is at the door.
Who is it?
The Copyright Cops
What's this about?
Descriptions of games are copyright of Major League Baseball. I'm afraid you'll have to come with us.
Of course its gonna be criminal... (Score:4, Insightful)
... as its easier for ego manic cops to bust the innocent then it is for them to sweat it out busting organized crime.
incredible simple math that a kindergarten kid even knows at the sandbox....
As a result the following information is illegal.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Firstly, any and all your home computers, if you use bittorrent or download music you need to change your habits. Get a USB hard drive and a live CD to run your computer when you are in EVIL PIRATE MODE. if the live CD you use allows the use of truecrypt on the USB drive, I highly recommend it. If it is found you need plausible deniability. I had hacker friends that hid their USB drive inside a belkin UPS under their desk. nobody questions a UPS with a USB cable out of it, Hiding it in plain sight like that will help deter and distract the invading police during their search.
This way you can hide your usb drive with all the evidence and your regular home PC is pristene and clean with no evidence to condemn you.
Works great, leaves no evidence except that which is on your USB drive. You need to start using habits like the Jews had to use in WWII Germany.. take your drive and hide it well when not in use as you will never know when your home will be raided by the Secret IP police. you need to live a double life, and make sure you have good hiding places for your contraband. also be secret, never brag or tell others about your stash as they may be agents of the IP Police... (Bet you money that in a couple of years they will start a "rat on your parents/neighbors/friends" blitz to encourage people to turn in their neighbors.
Re:As a result the following information is illega (Score:4, Insightful)
First of all, they do need evidence. They need enough evidence to meet probable cause to get a judge to sign a warent to enter your home. They DO have a burden of proof to meet, and that IS constitutionally protected. As far as seizure, if the judge OK's seisure, you're also protected under the constitution to a speedy trial. The courts will likely rule pretty quick that they can copy an image of your system for further investigation, but since forensics on a PC can be done in a few days tops, if they can't provide further proof of illegal activity to a court quickly, a lawyer will very quickly have that system released back into your hands (likely with blank hard drives, but if you're not backing up, that's your fault!). If you;re found innocent, provided there was both a burden of proof, and due process, you can't sue the government for loos of use, but if the system was physically damaged (not data lossm, but damage or extended unreasonably loos of use) then you do have a case, nut only for minor compensation.
Honestly though, this is not about creating a govenrment body to do the RIAA's bidding, it;s about creating a government body so that we can make the RIAA stop! individuals and the media alike are causing swells in the voter community regarding the RIAA, and though it's currently a minor issue, it IS an issue. Likely more imnportant is the fact that the RIAA is pissing off large universities, schools that give candidates a HUGE boost with campaign finance, open public forums to speak in, and more. I'm sure the senators want to see this harassmenty of their voter base end as soon as is possible.
Once this agency takes over, the RIAA is rendered virtually powerless. They'll be outside the law and open to direct criminal prosecution for their actions if they continue on their current track.
Equally, this agency might go looking for some big, press worthy targets, but they're not interested in pissing off the same pool of people the RIAA is.
Besides, the RIAA ius a bunch of nut jobs, eager to do anything they can, and paid extremely well for their efforts. If it all falls apart, either way, they all got rich trying. On the government side of the picture, we're talking about career law enforcement salaries here. These guys not only will NOT be rich if they get fired because they got the agency sued, it ends their careers as well. The RIAA guys are businessmen, and can get another job in their field. A cop gets fired, he's going to low budget security work. Not exactly appealing.
These guys, just like the NYC cops who seize the cars of drunk drivers, will overlook questionable cases and only go for the sure wins. They can'ty afford to make mistakes. If they can be absolutely certain you're stealing files, and can convince a judge of the same, then come in and take your system, odds are, you WILL be guilty. It's a big enough expense to prove themselves right, especially since they'll likely never see any real money back from it and putting you in prison only costs more, but LOOSING a case could cost them millions, and the government does NOT take that kind of risk lightly.
They do not need "suspicion" they need to overcome warentable burden of proof. Failure to return property to an innocent is a violation of the constitution, and people who make government wage will be fired if this is an issue on any level. It's called personal accountabiulity, and the RIAA does not currently have that, so it;s a problem that must be resolved.
Many think it might just be easier to outlaw the RIAA's activities, but doing so has too many side effects. 1) since there is no government organization doing the same, it basically gives us all free license to start sharing, since only gross violaters would ever be noticed by the FBI, the only other fallback. 2) it would also limit PIs all over the country, as well as smaller government offeces. We can't stop the RIAA's activitys alone, we have to offer a legal substitute.
This agency may have a completely flawedf desig
Parent
Senate Judiciary Committee Members (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Senate Judiciary Committee Members (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s3325/show [opencongress.org]
Sponsor
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT]
Co-Sponsors:
and 7 Co-Sponsors
Sen. B. Evan Bayh [D, IN]
Sen. Benjamin Cardin [D, MD]
Sen. John Cornyn [R, TX]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D, CA]
Sen. Arlen Specter [R, PA]
Sen. George Voinovich [R, OH]
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D, RI]
I can't find who in the committee voted for it or against it. It passed committee 14 - 4.
Members on the committee:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/members.cfm [senate.gov]
Committee Members
Patrick J. Leahy
Chairman, D-Vermont
Edward M. Kennedy
D-Massachusetts
Arlen Specter
Ranking Member, R-Pennsylvania
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
D-Delaware
Orrin G. Hatch
R-Utah
Herb Kohl
D-Wisconsin
Charles E. Grassley
R-Iowa
Dianne Feinstein
D-California
Jon Kyl
R-Arizona
Russell D. Feingold
D-Wisconsin
Jeff Sessions
R-Alabama
Charles E. Schumer
D-New York
Lindsey Graham
R-South Carolina
Richard J. Durbin
D-Illinois
John Cornyn
R-Texas
Biography
Benjamin L. Cardin
D-Maryland
Sam Brownback
R-Kansas
Sheldon Whitehouse
D-Rhode Island
Tom Coburn
R-Oklahoma
Parent
Re:Senate Judiciary Committee Members (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Profit Police... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow. Think of how many of our citizens we could throw in jail!
-- America, where more money is spent on prisons than education.
It's just a committee vote (Score:5, Informative)
Not a good thing, but it's not law yet. You still have time to write your congresscritters.
And I see it's tagged "democrats." I find the party's support of the copyright lobby to be rather dismaying, but let's not ignore the fact that more than half of the Republicans on the committee also voted in favor. They're all willing to suck off the media companies, cause most people don't really know enough to care, and most of those that do just bitch about on slashdot.
This is going to be AWESOME! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:government vs provate industry (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, that's scary is that, if this passes, the DoJ becomes the enforcement arm for private industry.
How is it at all rational that the DoJ should be pursuing civil matters on behalf of private companies? I mean, are they going to start being the investigative arm and replace Media Sentry and me the ones to be sending subpoenas to universities and then prosecute them? Why does this industry group get their own publicly funded enforcement agency?
This sounds like a really bad turning point for justice in America. Welcome to the distopian future kiddies!
Cheers
Parent
Re:it's more than likely (Score:5, Insightful)
Same as it's gone over with everything else they've pulled. "Thank you sir, may I have another?"
Nobody of importance will complain. Nobody who complains will be heard from. Not until the copyright cops bust into a few wrong places and get shot; then we'll hear about how copyright infringers are terrorists, and they'll create some even WORSE laws.
Parent
Re:More flaimbait posts. (Score:5, Informative)
Dude, did you read TFA? Because, if the way ars describes it is accurate, the whole law is pretty much inflammatory.
It's downright scary!! The federal government will now pursue civil matters on behalf of private entities, with the inclusion for collateral damage of seizure of entire server farms. So, if you host with someone, and one of their customers infringes, you could lose all of your stuff with little or no recourse.
This is a very scary precedent, and it seems to blur some historical distinctions between federal agencies and private interests.
Cheers
Parent
Re:More flaimbait posts. (Score:5, Insightful)
Allow me to dispel your insinuations that this department is currently doing the equivalent of what is being proposed.
From their web site [usdoj.gov] ...
Having a department whose job it is to enforce federal statutes on behalf of injured parties is in no way the same as the investigation and enforcement on behalf of large corporate interests.
The presence of the word "civil" in both titles doesn't change the fact that the federal government does not pursue "civil" cases on behalf of companies, and never has. Enforcing the "civil" rights of people is a completely different thing. I suspect you know this, but choose to ignore the distinction.
Cheers
Parent
Re:Seizures? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's just another in a long line of laws that America has created where seizing private property is the response.
Before you just, you know, paid a fine, went to jail, and recovered property was returned to the owners when some crime was committed. Now the myriad of crimes have punishments that cover:
I doubt this is the America that people envisioned hundreds of years ago, but what really disturbs me is that I don't think this was the kind of America when I was a kid. It is actually really bothering me these days.
The amount of growing government power to just seize anyone and everything for any amount of time with massive legal hassles to get it or you out of seizure is insane. The concept of government punishment is growing far beyond the crime (share 1000 mp3s with your friends for crap music you would never have bought in the first place) to destroying and shattering peoples live forever.
The laws are being created to circumvent the judicial system. It used to be that the police could be ignored in many cases, because arresting someone really means very little, it was the prosecution that mattered. You might spend a bit of time in jail pre-trial, but prosecution was something you could avoid with the right lawyers.
Realizing this, the laws are being set up now, so the punishment isn't just some "jail time", now you have to spend years recovering even your basic possessions for the laws which now are designed to benefit the agencies itself. Whether prosecuted or not, getting your property back is a very very difficult task.
I just don't see it getting better, but getting worse. Mix laws where people and property can be taken without recourse with the wrong executive body governing the application of those laws and there will be some real problems coming.
But hey, at least I know that when I write some music and sign a song I'll have royalty protection for my music label and I'll get my 5 cents on the dollar.
Parent
Re:Seizures? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I don't think part of that will stand in court (Score:4, Interesting)
A closer analogy would be seizing all businesses in an office building because one of the businesses was engaged in alleged illegal activity. Your guilty because you rent facilities from the same provider as the target of the government action.
Parent