Copy That Floppy, Lose Your Computer 766
Over the weekend we posted a story about a new copyright bill that creates a new govt. agency in charge of copyright enforcement. Kevin Way writes "In particular, the bill grants this new agency the right to seize any computer or network hardware used to "facilitate" a copyright crime and auction it off. You would not need to be found guilty at trial to face this penalty. You may want to read a justification of it, and criticism presented by Declan McCullagh and Public Knowledge." Lots of good followup there on a really crazy development.
This may be your last chance... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, let's see what happens in the next elections. If the people lose, you're welcome to establish here below the Bravo
funny how... (Score:5, Interesting)
Really, is it just my perception or has the number of stuff that was made a law only to be killed by the courts as unconstitutional skyrocketed? I really wonder, why that is.
Re:Shot down for all the wrong reasons... (Score:3, Interesting)
Why bother with a judicial system? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's the (RI|MP)AA asking for the moon - that way, when they tone down their demands they won't sound as absurd.
Look at it from this perspective: how much resources do you imagine the FBI is dedicating to copyright infringement given the number of embarrassing gaffes that the entertainment industry is making? The entertainment industry wants a government department with powers similar to the FBI but dedicated purely to copyright enforcement. Such a department could not reasonably refuse to assist in arresting some relatively innocent granny because they have higher priorities.
Protecting America (Score:2, Interesting)
In the hopes that this post will not be disregarded, I have to say that I am not in favour of draconian copyright laws, such as those currently proposed in Canada (my home), or the ridiculous penalties applied in the US ($10,000 per song!), and I am worried that DRM will have the long-term effect of making our culture inaccessible to future generations (back with the folks who didn't write anything down).
Globalization and outsourcing are removing most of the jobs that involve physically producing something from North America. Look around your house and imagine what you would have left if everything that was made elsewhere was removed. Those jobs used to be the backbone of our societies; with them gone, we are moving to "intellectual property" (usually meaning charging repeatedly for the same product, such as a movie or song) and "service jobs" (usually low paying and temporary).
Like it or hate it, if no one pays for ideas, then all that is left is low-end service jobs and the eventual failure of our way of life. I think they are doing a very poor job of selling the idea of buying ideas, but the politicians and corporations who are terrified of a world where we only pay for music and movies once do have a few good points mixed in with their nonsensical terms and anti-copying advertising.
I look forward to a day when we can have reasonable copyright laws and periods, no DRM and affordable prices that people can pay to reward creators at a reasonable rate. Perhaps my children will live to see that day, but I doubt I will (and I'm only 29).
Re:So? (Score:5, Interesting)
Nothing new here. Civil forfeiture [cornell.edu] has been a feature of the War on Drugs for a long time; extending it to the War on Copying is an obvious strategy. The "great" thing about civil forfeiture is that the defendant isn't you, with all of your rights; in a twisted bit of legal sophistry, it's the property itself being sued by the government.
I'm sure it will be just as successful in stopping copying as it was in stopping drug use. (I'm just waiting for the violent black market in bootleg DVDs to develop.)
"History repeats itself: First as tragedy, then as farce." - Marx got that one right at least.
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Selective enforcement? (Score:3, Interesting)
When are you people going to wake up and see that the two party politicking that is so prominent in the media is just another way to keep you obeying? If you really think that Democrats and Republicans are so different it just proves that you've been fooled.
Stay asleep. They like you better that way.
Re:How is this wrong? Let me count the ways... (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/looting-of-america.html [isil.org]
Indeed (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, without a trial and conviction, your computer equipment can be seized by the cops and sold to supplement the donut/hooker/beer petty cash fund. This is just fucking great. I'd love to see this shot down, but I doubt it will.
And I love the "justification". The fact that the US doesn't make anything *real* anymore is not my fault. Ideas are great and all, but when your only product is ideas, and you've outsourced the manufacture of real, durable goods to other places, you will eat your own dog food eventually. I laugh at how they tossed counterfeit meds in there -- nobody will vote that down during an election cycle. "The senator from your state voted *against* protecting seniors from counterfeit medicine on the internet!" Nevermind that they're trying to kill out-of-country medication purchases *anyway*.
Anyone know where I can get a free (or cheap and paid anonymously with cash) shell account overseas where I can SSH in and compile/run TOR? This is getting fucking ridiculous.
So, this would mean.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't wait.
(Not that I really expect that would ever happen even if this became law. We all know there's one law for the people and another for the corporations (and yet another for the politicians).)
What I'd really like to see is a constitutional amendment (that's what it would take) that automatically bars an official from re-election if he or she proposes, sponsors, or votes for legislation like this which is prima facie unconstitutional (they've violated their oath of office to uphold the constitution).
But I don't expect that to happen either.
Re:So? (Score:1, Interesting)
For actual examples of the President outright suspending habeas corpus, look at President Lincoln in 1861 (as a response to unrest due to the American civil war) or President Grant in 1871 (in response to KKK actions).
Re:So? (Score:5, Interesting)
They're not "undercover cops" or "plainclothes policemen". Call a spade a spade - they're God damned Secret Police, no different than the Communist KGB or the Nazi's Secret Police. If "crimes" like drug possession, gambling, and prostitution weren't crimes there would be no reason or excuse to have Secret Police.
So now you have a "crime" that's a civil matter and you forfeit property without compensation or trial. Thank you, "Partnership for a Drug Free America". I hope your God damned children become needle junkies you fucking assholes, because drug laws make their becoming junkiest MORE likely. Marijuana doesn't lead to harder drugs, marijuana LAWS leas potsmokers to harder drugs.
How far does this slippery slope slide? I love my country, I hate its government. Perhaps one day my descendants will again have a representative government, rather than the one party plutocracy it has become.
-mcgrew
Re:Makes sense on some levels (Score:5, Interesting)
This specifically entails skipping the due process involved. Basically, they can write you a spurious ticket and take your hardware...and never give it back, irregardless of whether you're guilty or not.
This crap really has to stop. Someone has to draw a line. No, actually, the whole country needs to draw a line, and demand that everything that has already crossed that line be revoked. Things in the US are starting to cross over into the land of the surreal. Jumped the shark is an understatement, and I KNOW that this is not the kind of thing your average American citizen wants to see happen.
Re:Republicans passed the Bono Act and the DMCA (Score:4, Interesting)
In all likelihood it was because the entertainment industry paid sufficient bribes that the politicians ignored their stated ideology and obeyed their corporate masters. The same as with every other stupidly evil bill.
Re:Littering (Score:5, Interesting)
-nB
Re:So? (Score:3, Interesting)
I was at an infragard meeting where some LE person asked for feedback about a similar proposal he wanted enacted for child porn. I submitted comments suggesting that it was a terrible idea.
Civil forfeiture laws are a terrible idea. They corrupt law enforcement and people do not get proper due process under this system.
If a judge doesn't want someone to access something that enables a particular type of crime that someone has been doing, they can make not owning or using that enabler (say a computer or a fishing boat) a condition of parole. And if they want to punish the person with a fine they can choose one that makes sense rather than one that is randomly based on what property was nearby when the person was apprehended.
Re:So? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think there should be a special class of judgement that SCOTUS can invoke against legislators, where a law is so obviously a violation of the Constitution, that the legislatures are fined millions of dollars and/or sent to prison for years for intentional violation of citizens' civil liberties. As well, where it's revealed that lobbiests were involved in the drafting of said legislation, they also are fined and sent to prison.
But of course, we know that Jesus loves money, loves lobbiests and despises liberties.
better than great! (Score:2, Interesting)
MPAA violation, see: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/12/03/mpaas-university-wir.html [boingboing.net]
Sony has infringed a copyright - when the auction? (Score:5, Interesting)
Close examination of the rootkit that Sony's audio CDs attack their customers' PCs with has revealed that their malicious software is built on code that infringes on copyright. Indications are that Sony has included the LAME music encoder, which is licensed under the Lesser General Public License (LGPL), which requires that those who use it attribute the original software and publish some of the code they write to use the library. Sony has done none of this.
So, based on the proposed bill - how much of Sony would have been auctioned of I wonder...
Big Brother's Cousin? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This is great! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure a lot of people have no idea what you're talking about. This started because state police in many states were empowered to seize property, without due process, and *pocket* the proceeds. This created an environment where almost every state cop in the US, where this was implemented, was actually a criminal. Several states, after a decade or more of complaints, finally started to investigate.
It seems it worked like this. Cop sees nice expensive car. Cop pulls over the car. Cop claims you are a drug deal and plants evidence. Cop seizes you car and everything in it. You are arrested. Drug charges were often dropped. You car and all your property within the car is sold at auction. Cop pockets all of the proceeds. Normally out of state cars were the preferred targets, leave you little recourse. And in the end, who wants to champion "drug dealers." States only started to act when it was found that the majority of the "drug dealers" fit a certain profile such as "affluent retirees" passing through the state.
States such as GA, LA, MS, and AL were especially bad. The solution was to tell the police to stop it. They couldn't simply arrest all of the criminal cops because in those four states, as much as 90% of the state police would be behind bars. It was thought that created too much of a risk to public safety to put criminals in jail.
So chances are, if you've been ticketed by a state policeman in these states, you were ticketed by a criminal that has commit more crimes than most any criminal currently convicted, sitting in jail right now.
Re:So? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, I ran into the following on-target quote just now on Neatorama [neatorama.com], and I hopped right back here to append it:
- Ernest Benn, publicist (1875 - 1954)
Speak the truth brother! (Score:2, Interesting)
When you ask them what Paul stands for, they claim that THEY know, and if anyone else wants to they need to google it because it's all out
Listen to him talk about the gold standard, the war on drugs, how big state government is better than beg federal government, his theories on reducing the bureaucracy... anyone with a medium understanding of economics, history, evolution (as a concept not strictly in the creationism v. evolution sense) or consequence can start poking holes in his theories.
Re:This may be your last chance... (Score:3, Interesting)
If you look up each of those countries on Wikipedia (or any other place), you will find them to be much superior of USA in most ways.
Re:How is this wrong? Let me count the ways... (Score:2, Interesting)
The Land of Life (of Servitute to greedy corporations), Liberty (Unless the someone shouts "terrorist", "government protest", or "lack of obsene corporate profits") and The Pursuit of Happiness (if you are a corporation bribing, aka lobbying the proper government officials).
The people of the USA have basically had all liberties and due proces taken from them, first in small doses then in larger doses more visible to the point the US Constitution is basically a joke. The people can do one of two things:
1. Take it up the rear end and love it, or
2. Stand up to it and say "no" like human being who still believe in the constitution (if it hasn't been totally shreaded yet).
We'll see which the people the USA decide. Perhaps they could use from lessons from the French who still know how to fight for and protect their rights. Unfortunately the people of the USA have so far been relatively uninvolved with politics worrying about things at home and on TV. Guess what? This IS your home and reality television is anything but real.
Re:So? (Score:4, Interesting)
1) Before your trial, all of your assets are seized.
2) Therefore you can't pay an attorney...so you probably lose if they try you.
3) You can't appeal the verdict without:
a) Paying a rather expensive fee for the appeal, and
b) The appeals court accepting the case
4) If you appeal, you can't appeal based on anything that wasn't raised as an issue in the original trial...where you had a lawyer who was either unpaid or chosen by the govt. (aka public defender).
5) If the appeals court decides against you, you must appeal to the District court. (I think I have this right. Possibly this step is skipped.) All of the caveats WRT the appeals court apply again (if I haven't separated into two what is really one court).
6) Now you can appeal to the Supreme Court. They refuse to hear most cases that are appealed to them. They will generally only agree to hear cases where the decision that they will make is politically acceptable. They are also quite expensive, and all of your assets were impounded before step one.
Because of this, your only hope is if some organization, e.g. the ACLU, decides to get involved very early in the process. This rarely happens. It will essentially never happen if you represent something unpopular, because the organization depends on solicited funds.
Also notice that each of these steps takes multiples of years. You're trying to swim upstream, and all levels of the government offer increased resistence when you do that. If you were trying to plead guilty the case might be decided within months, but since you are opposed to the govt., it will take years to decades even if you are *eventually* successful.
So, no, these laws haven't yet gone to the Supreme Court. I doubt that they've ever gone to an appeals court. Remember that step one is to strip the defendent of the ability to pay for lawyers.
Re:Well, Americans (Score:2, Interesting)
Welcome to 2007 (or 2006, it's an old map), there are 5 companies [thenation.com] which have a stranglehold on everything you see and hear, and every one of them has worked hard to convince people that "independent" is merely a budgetary constraint. If you can find a movie that doesn't have one of those logos on them, congrats, you've found a true independent film and not something that's just an audition for the main stream. Bonus points if it's good.
Now all you have to do is convince the general public to not go watch the emotional pablum advertised by pretty people staring at them from every magazine cover and billboard, then convince the juggernaut multiplexes which are mostly owned by studios to show them. If that doesn't work, all you have to do is convince the "premium" cable channels (also owned by the same 5 companies) to throw it into their rotation. To round things out, you'd also have to find a distributor that's not either owned in part by or extremely friendly to those same 5 companies (otherwise you run the risk of your work being "vaulted", which means thrown away until Hollywood can churn out something similar) who'll try their best to convince rental outlets to waste valuable shelf space on it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for independent media and stifle a slight bit of anger whenever a mom and pop theater closes or Disney releases another High School Musical, but too many people sat by idly while this system built itself for it to be easily stopped.
Re:Shot down for all the wrong reasons... (Score:1, Interesting)
Pretty much all of that money is coming from individuals, mostly small donations over the Internet.
Love him or hate him, he's proving that the grassroots can fund politicians just as well as big-money lobbyists can. If we set up PACs for these sorts of issues, take donations online, and publicize through slashdot, reddit, digg, facebook, etc., we can make an impact.
Re:funny how... (Score:3, Interesting)
Second, if things did grind to a halt, maybe Congress would relearn how to actually compromise on a bill's terms, until it's something everyone can live with. That, too, protects minorities -- while sneak-riders do the exact opposite.
Re:So? (Score:3, Interesting)
Uhh, yeah, I was with you up until this point. For better or worse SCOTUS has issued lots of highly unpopular decisions in it's history. Hell, the GP even mentioned a recent one [wikipedia.org].
I'd disagree with this too. The ACLU has defended people accused of possession of child pornography before. Doesn't get much more unpopular then that.
(I agree with everything else you said)
OTOH, all of this is based on my perception of what's happening. I haven't done research on the statistics. I *do* observe many clearly vile instances of injustice that the ACLU doesn't get involved with, and it's not always because they don't think they could win. They're dealing with a kind of triage, because there are many more cases of injustice than they can possibly deal with. They are *forced* to be selective in what cases they tackle. So they tackle the ones that they think are 1) important, 2) winnable, 3) not too unpopular. Then if they've got a bit of slack, they pick up a few of the others. (Again, this is just my model of how they work. I could be wrong.)
Re:So? (Score:3, Interesting)
"No, man, it's dry. Want some coke?"
Re:So? (Score:3, Interesting)
If they actually form this proposed Federal Information Property Bureau they've been talking about, I'm seriously going to start looking for a new country to live in. It's been bad enough lately that I've been tossing the idea around, I just haven't found anywhere that I like better yet. Mostly I'm looking for someplace with a good tech sector, good privacy rights, and preferably no censorship of any kind. I used to think Canada might be feasible, but more and more they're looking like a clone of the USA. Sometimes I wonder if they're not passing some of this stupid regulation in the USA just to keep ahead of Canada on abusive laws.
So, anyone got any suggestions for places to live? I've thought about someplace like Norway, or maybe Iceland, although at the very least I'm a bit concerned about the language barrier, being a native English speaker and not entirely certain I could handle mastering an entirely new language.