H.R. 4279 Would Establish Federal IP Cops 686
MrSnivvel writes "H.R. 4279, Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008, is gaining momentum in Congress. It passed the House a few days back. It would allow the Feds to seize hardware that has even one file coming from 'dubious origins,' e.g. downloaded from P2P. If passed into law, the bill would establish an Intellectual Property Enforcement Division within the office of the Deputy Attorney General. Rep. John Conyers says the goal is to 'prioritize intellectual property protection to the highest level of our government.'"
Well (Score:4, Insightful)
Nukes, drugs? NO! (Score:4, Insightful)
Watch out WoWers! (Score:5, Insightful)
So if a computer has anything they got from p2p, then the cops can confiscate their computers? So if, say, a cop doesn't like someone's politics, ethnicity, race, sexuality or gender and that cop knows the person plays WoW, they can confiscate the person's computer with no possible recourse for the victim? Sure a charge won't come from it, but they get to make life annoying for that person.
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
For that matter, do those reps think that this will make law enforcement give one whit about people stealing albums? They already have enough to deal with in terms of real crime, and they're going to utterly ignore this anyway.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Seizing hardware (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seizing hardware (Score:3, Insightful)
This is bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Good to see elected officials once again bowing to the wishes of the trabant factories.
New government type required (Score:4, Insightful)
I move for the new designation of "Corporate Plutocracy".
Can I get a second for the motion?
Police State! (Score:5, Insightful)
If there's any law I've seen recently that qualifies as police state, this is one.
What? (Score:4, Insightful)
"PRO-IP Act"?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IP is the most important issue facing us in the (Score:3, Insightful)
As they say on 4chan, (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IP is the most important issue facing us in the (Score:3, Insightful)
In the US the database of law as it applies in practice - the rulings whether a law is valid or not; whether a law can be applied to a particular circumstance - is itself a work protected under copyright.
I can think of no better argument against copyright than it prevents citizens from knowing what the law is.
Thought police? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They can start with confiscating Orrin Hatch's (Score:5, Insightful)
Priorities? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, we have our priorities right. With all the famine, high energy prices, wars, natural disasters, etc, we know that IP rights must be the highest priority, to keep that money flowing into congress. Getting that pocket lined is more important then feeding people.
Kick them all out, they are no longer serving the citizens as they are mandated to do by the constitution. Its a breech of contract of their oath of office.
dash (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Watch out WoWers! (Score:4, Insightful)
first things first (Score:3, Insightful)
I am afraid to use my card to buy a song for 90 cents. Not that I do not want to pay.
But I will not resume walking to the shops to by disks. It's like asking me to start riding a horse.
It's gone, over. Forget about it. Move on. No more CDs. Turn the page.
Re:Police State! (Score:2, Insightful)
Divide and rule..
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
So, basically, we're ALL criminals..... (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is: who doesn't have something on their computer that infringes copyright in some manner? It's not just the P2P crowd -- they might well share some of their booty with others, maybe even providing tracks on a CD-R to friends who have slow connections, or not enough savvy to use or desire to risk torrents. If you've ripped tracks from someone else's CD, technically you're violating a copyright. (Hell, the RIAA thinks that ripping your own CDs is infringement). How many people have software of dubious origin on their machines, either by design or ignorance? (All those grey market Windows and Photoshop CDs that are ubiquitous on eBay, for example.) For that matter, what about the mass of infringing material on YouTube? Download a clip from last night's American Idol before Fox has it pulled, and now your computer is ours....mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha. Even more damning is that there is hardly a website in existence that doesn't have SOMETHING on it -- a graphic, photo, quote, musical background -- that is, by the strictest standard of the law, an infringement of someone's copyright. Just viewing the website puts those items in your cache -- voila, you are now guilty...please hand over the computer quietly and there won't be any trouble.
Maybe this is a plot to help balance the budget. Instead of spending money on computers for all the federal agencies, they just seize as many as they need from all us hardened criminals.
And thus (Score:4, Insightful)
Thanks Retards.
Re:ideas != property (Score:3, Insightful)
While I agree with your sentiments, I'm afraid you'll have to make your case to everyone from economists to business leaders to the folks in government to those working in various thinktanks to the punditocracy. Their thinking goes along the following lines:
Because the US economy is a now a service economy (the manufacturing base having long since migrated to places like China), intellectual property is our sole asset. Ergo, the protection of intellectual property rights deserves not only the highest priority, but also is key to the economic growth.
Nothwithstanding Slashdot's favourite issues du jour (including, but not limited to the abusive behaviour of the entertainment industries, the widely held but erroneous perception that software is sold in shrinkwrapped boxes only, the urgent need for patent reform, and the erosion of consumer rights), those advocating increased IP protection, I'm afraid, do have a valid argument. The problem is that to the extent their argument is valid, the measures taken typical range from the ridiculous to the absurd.
Re:Something funny re: the amendments to section 4 (Score:3, Insightful)
>>and (4) increase penalties for IP violations that endanger public health and safety.
Wouldn't be more reasonable to have some law that have penalties in general for something that endager public health and safety? Regardless of if it involves some IP violation or not! Or shall it be more OK to endager public health and safety as long as you do it with an original than with an illegal copy? This seems to not be related to IP at all (regardless of what you include in IP).
Re:They can start with confiscating Orrin Hatch's (Score:3, Insightful)
(Please note, the quote does not say "a person gets").
You need to be involved. Check your Congressman's vote:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-300 [govtrack.us]
Write him if you don't like it (or if you did). I'm proud to say Ron Paul of TX voted Nay.
Just a thought... (Score:2, Insightful)
Call your senator and tell them not to lose your vote by passing this crap.
Re:Seizing hardware (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone I know had every computer in his home taken for suspicion of child porn. It took a few months but he finally got everything back and no charges were ever filed. They conceded nothing was found and that the open wifi hotspot of his house along a major roadway was probably to blame.
The worse part? The feds kept saying, in his face, "We've found child porn on your computer. How do you explain it." He had been in law enforcement for years and he was shocked at the outright blatant lies told to him about this 'evidence'. No files were found, they just lied.
If we get IP police, I won't be surprised if they take the same handbook from the child porn feds.
Re:ideas != property (Score:3, Insightful)
Priorities? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IP is the most important issue facing us in the (Score:3, Insightful)
Progress is made by shared invention. Once upon a time invention sharing was universal but progress was slow. Then we had copyrights and patents and the intent of these was to encourage investment in invention by granting a temporary monopoly on it. That worked for a while. Economic interests have spoiled this by extending the monopoly into eternity and twisting the word invention to absurdity. These days people are choosing to share their invention [fsf.org] from the beginning or not at all.
It may be time to end the zenlike "temporary yet eternal" [abolishcopyright.com] monopolies granted under copyright and patent.
Re:This is not capitalism (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, capitalism is the free change of goods. The problem with government and capitalism is that there's nothing inherently free about government - it's an arbitrary structure held in place by the threat of force (if you don't obey the laws, you go to jail = threat of force).
Your idea of companies being the government has even less foundation in reality, so you're probabaly right in your last words, no, you don't know what is.
Democracy is not a very good mix with capitalism, since voters scare easily. They don't understand the simple mechanism that if you setup a $10/hour minimum wage then work that is worth $5/hour will simply not get done, and anyone who can't provide value above that threshold is left to live on charity -- and yes, hiring some who's worth $5/hour at $10 is nothing but charity.
The entertainment business has managed to scare a sufficient number of voters (and politicians) into believing that copyright is some magical thing that must be protected by draconian laws in the face of unautorized copying, where someone who understands the market economy will know to leave it alone and let the market solve it by itself. Yes, it might mean that the next [insert this weeks polished R&B-pop sensation] might go un-limousined and might have to get a real job instead, but is that really a loss? Most of the truly great performing artists get established by themselves without the help of RIAA - they just step in to give them the last kick. The success of iTunes Music Store suggests that if made sufficiently easy to get music legally, then that's what people will do over piracy.
Anyway, the beautiful thing about capitalism is that you don't have to be an economist to do it - capitalism is a qualitative description of how people interact and exchange goods, as opposed to most other economic systems, that are descriptions on how people should be forced to interact.
Re:ideas != property (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe you missed this part:
So just like in drug cases, you don't even have to be convicted of a crime - you lose your property based on an accusation. Think of it as a DMCA notice that not only takes down your site, but also has a bunch of jack-booted thugs coming and seizing all your stuff.
Maybe they will pursue a conviction and maybe not. If you want your stuff back, you have to put up a bond equal to the value of the stuff that was taken, sue the federal government, and prove your innocence. Good luck with that.
Re:This is not capitalism (Score:1, Insightful)
Sorry to interrupt, but actually Soviet Union had socialism, communism was but a goal, that was to be achieved. USSR - Union of Socialistic Soviet Republics. So...
As for extremism - as Karl Marks said if turn to the right to much, you might as well end up on the left.
Re:This is not capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Socialism is the pipe dream that you could take this to a further extreme and eliminate government and commerce, gather all power with the people and live happily ever after (in Marxist terms, the "workers' paradise"). The truth is, that much power will make its own structures and become an independent power whether you like it or not. The point is to make a system where the government serves its people and commerce serves its customers, not trying to put fraudulent equal signs. Congress don't do as we want, but they listen when voters flee. Corporations don't do as we want, but they do listen when we hit their wallet. It could have been better but ignore reality and you could end up with something much worse, and socialism ignores reality.
Then stop voting for either party (Score:5, Insightful)
At this point it doesn't matter in the slightest which party gets in, things will continue much the same way with minor differences in soundbite.
You can "throw your vote away" because a republican or democrat will get in, and it doesn't matter which. the more people that do this, the more those scared of "wasting their vote" will realise it's not a waste at all, and that all it takes is for more people to realise what's going on.
Criminal? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:This is not capitalism (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:IP is the most important issue facing us in the (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ideas != property (Score:5, Insightful)
Seizing property suspected of infringing? Are you NUTS?
The copyright holder has all the resources at his disposal to stop the redistribution of his work without consent, etc. This law does nothing but create a secret police force whose sole purpose is to rough up those who exist outside the "established" copyright kingdom.
Read up on the history of US copyright and you'll see that infringing is what we're good at, particularly when it came to books and the like.
WE were the rebels opposing the draconian English/European copyrights. I'm frankly tired of the perpetual extensions, lax registration, and overbearing unconstitutional power given copyright holders. (And artist != copyright holders these days...)
2nd Amend (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't we have more pressing issues to address? (Score:4, Insightful)
I of course have absolutely no factual research to back my statements so someone, someone credible, please prove me wrong.
Coreigh
Doesn't your browser have a spell-checker? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is not capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
If simplifying politics to a numeric scale from 0-100, and you yourself are at value 80, you may see a huge big difference between 70 and 90. However, someone in, say Europe, who is at 20, will see the two as pretty much the same.
And yes, compared to the wider spread most European countries enjoy, the two parties are very much alike. It's only when you compare them from an American viewpoint that they become vastly different.
There's a saying in Europe that the US has only two parties -- the ultra right wings and the republicans. It's very apt that the US Democratic party uses blue as its colour -- that's reserved for the conservative in Europe. And the democratic party is further to the right than almost any European conservative party. Heck, Ralph Nader is considered conservative by the standards in other western countries!
Also, let me remind you that almost every democratic representative voted for the invasion of Iraq and for the USA PATRIOT act. Judging by the actions of congress, I don't think a democratic president would have made much of a difference. The money would have been funnelled into different channels -- instead of going to friends in the oil industry, it might have gone to friends in other industries. But make no mistake, every single US president is bought and paid for by corporations. Including Obama or McCain, whichever one gets elected.
Re:This is not capitalism (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, I don't like the business practices of the "music business" at all so I won't buy their products. I also won't pirate them (I'm law-abiding) but I've got plenty of other things to do (writing OSS) that I feel I don't miss anything much. But I will and do support live music; I love going to concerts and the like. (I also mostly avoid cinema, but that's because most films are a load of fetid whale dreck. If the studios want my money, they have to produce something worth it first; I don't mind paying for stuff that's good.)
I'm sure you can come up with other examples.
Re:IP is the most important issue facing us in the (Score:4, Insightful)
Frankly, my right to keep my money is far less important to me than my right to not have my government spy on me, take my stuff without any reasonable cause, etc. I guess you're feeling the opposite way, which is fine, but I don't give a damn about money, so maybe that's why I just don't care in comparison.
Re:Matter assembly - It's all IP (Score:3, Insightful)
In a world where everyone has a replicator for ordinary objects, what property is there to own? The answer is obviously the software instructions required to produce the object. Suppose I want to build a coffee maker because my last one died. I'll download code to the "printer" and eventually have a new coffee maker. How many different kinds of coffee makers will there be? Will there be brands because people choose to pay the equivalents of Braun and Phillips real money for their supposedly-superior plans? Or will the world generally rely on open-sourced plans? For commodity items like coffee makers, I'd guess open source will be the norm as it is now for an ever-growing list of software commodities.
Obviously some physical objects like land will retain their value in this world. Energy resources might also still be an issue. Then there's foodstuffs. Will people join Capt. Picard at the replicator for a nice cup of "tea, Earl Grey, hot," or will they fear "manufactured" foods the same way genetically-engineered food scares some people now?
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
With a foreign war going on, energy prices spiraling out of control, a credit crisis in housing, a slumbering real-estate market... why on earth should we tolerate our congress squandering its time and committing scarce government resources to stuff like this? Creating a free stop-loss department for the entertainment industry is *not* a government priority... or at least it shouldn't be. How about we fund NASA, or Fermi, or try to defuse the Social Security time bomb?
People's senators and reps need to know that their votes on this and similar initiatives will inform us about what their priorities are; a vote for this is a vote against [the children|education|science|social security solvency|etc.]
Yes, of course the initiative is just plain wrong, and the reasons why are important too. Congress-critters, though, seem to think in terms more like the above. The governing class most always seems to see expanding government and creating agencies like this as a Good Thing(tm), so philosophical arguments for or against this stuff may not be as digestible to them as simply saying "hey, in political commercials next time around, a Yea vote on this will make you look like you prefer this not-so-popular thing to popular things that are short on funding."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is this so important to the USA? (Score:3, Insightful)
Intended to be used (Score:3, Insightful)