Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

New Congressional Bill Makes DMCA Look Tame

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the things-that-make-you-go-hmmm dept.

895

An anonymous reader writes "Representative Lamar Smith is sponsoring the Intellectual Property Protection Act. The new bill is designed to give the Justice Department 'tools to combat IP crime' which which are used to 'quite frankly, fund terrorism activities,' according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Among the provisions is lowering the standards for 'willful copyright violation' and increasing the corresponding prison term to 10 years." More information is also available at publicknowledge.org.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (4, Informative)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188383)

Lamar Smith, Christian Scientist, hater of immigrants & proud possessor of one of the stupidest middle names eve (Seeligson).

Reading Open Secret's page [opensecrets.org] about him, you see the usual line up of Legal firms, Content & Tech companies. Just the people who stand to benefit from this legislation the most.

I really don't understand why people vote for politicians who are bought & sold so easily (and cheaply).

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (5, Insightful)

808skeptic (943096) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188389)

I wonder if the Bush Administration realizes what its rhetoric sounds like. Copyright infringement = terrorism? Marijuana = terrorism? This is overtly Orwellian doubletalk. I'm not going so far as to say that we're in a police state, but you can justify stronger IP laws without resorting to blaming it (and everything) for terrorism. It's fucking ridiculous.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (5, Funny)

reldruH (956292) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188402)

Be careful with how loosely you throw around the 1984 references. You never know when Big Brother is watching...

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (2, Insightful)

ColonelClaw (744934) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188423)

just when i thought american politicians couln't sink any lower... guys, how on earth can you put up with such a bunch of lying scheming bastards controlling your country? using 'terrorism' as an excuse to do how they please makes me absolutely sick to the bone

They've got the army, we don't (1, Offtopic)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188457)

The second amendment is useless and completely ignored. Also, different segments of society write other segments of society off, speaking as one who has been written off.

The mental health profession in the USA is mainly to keep people who have been written off preoccupied. Once I refused to let them keep me preoccupied, they refused to have anything to do with me.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15188436)

I wonder if the Bush Administration realizes what its rhetoric sounds like.

Wrong question.

Right question:

I wonder if the Bush Administration cares.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (3, Insightful)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188567)

Still wrong.

It was introduced by a Congressman.

Let me go ahead and repeat that for you, since nobody ever understands that.

A CONGRESSMAN.

The reason that "the Bush Administration" gets away with this is because you're looking in the wrong place. This is called "the legislature," and it really hasn't got a damn thing to do with who is the President.

Want to fix this situation? Blame the right people.

It sounds almost like Congress has this double talk thing worked out as well.

"Everything that we do that pisses people off" = "The Bush Administration"

These people can get away with it as long as the voters blame everything that they do on Bush.

Right question: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15188590)

I wonder if the Bush Administration realizes what its rhetoric sounds like.
I wonder if the Bush Administration cares.


answer: not as long as they can keep getting away with it. [popealien.com]

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (5, Insightful)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188495)

but you can justify stronger IP laws without resorting to blaming it (and everything) for terrorism.

You can. You can resort to blaming it on child pornography [slashdot.org] instead. Works just as well!

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (1)

lorelorn (869271) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188560)

All they are doing is repeating the same level of sophistication in an argument that it took to convince them.

string annoyingPeople=terrorist; (3, Insightful)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188587)

I wonder if the Bush Administration realizes what its rhetoric sounds like. Copyright infringement = terrorism? Marijuana = terrorism?

<rant>
They are simply sticking with what worked in the hysteric political climate of the recent past when all you needed to do to get a law passed was prefix the words 'anti terrorist' to every occurrence of the word 'legislation' and where you only had to accuse annoying groups of people of having 'links to Al Quaeda' or having 'Islamist sympathies' (Incidentally, what does that make the US based Christian fundamentalists? Christianists!?!) to ensure you could declare open season on them. This is probably just an attempt to see how far you can take this tactic. Fortunately people are getting wise to the ploy, it is only unfortunate it has taken so long.
</rant>

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply (4, Insightful)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188395)

Because when your only choices are between two guys that can be bought and sold so cheaply, that's what you pick. Voter turnout is low for this among other reasons.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply (5, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188419)

Because when your only choices are between two guys that can be bought and sold so cheaply, that's what you pick.

Sorry - I find that argument quite irritating.

You have plenty of choice. A vote for a third candidate does not throw your vote away - even if that candidate is not elected, an increase in other party's showing sends a message to the incumbrents.

Voter turnout is low for this among other reasons.

Voter turnout is low because of stupidity & apathy. People need to understand that you do not have to get your party voted in to make a difference

Say you're a libertarian (I'm not), you feel that there is no point voting as your candidate will never get elected, but if the candidates percentage of the vote is 1% one year, then 1.2%, then 3%, etc, the major parties will notice that & attempt to make their policies closer to the libertarian (or whatever) ideal.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188446)

major parties will notice that & attempt to make their policies closer to the libertarian

What part of "The major parties sell themselves cheaply" don't you understand?

Say you're a libertarian

The nonvoters generally belong to no political leaning, not libertarian, not green, not anything, and the political system is so messed up, as far as anyone can tell, even the minor political parties will sell themselves cheaply.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply (0, Troll)

quintesse (654840) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188563)

I'm sorry, but 1% or 1.2% is not going to make a dent in the conviction of the larger parties. As long as you don't get up to double digits you ARE throwing your vote away. But I don't see anyone waiting 40 years to get there!! (By your example, 1% the first year, 3% the third, except that elections are only once every 4 years, so it would take 40 years to get up to at least 10%, I know nobody who is willing to wait that long when things need to change NOW)

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188584)

I'm sorry, but 1% or 1.2% is not going to make a dent in the conviction of the larger parties. As long as you don't get up to double digits you ARE throwing your vote away. But I don't see anyone waiting 40 years to get there!!

What you need to understand is that voting for either of republicans or the democrats is the REAL waste of a vote.

The two parties are IDENTICAL except for a couple knee-jerk issues that make good sound-bytes but have zero to do with the day to day operation of the government.

I know nobody who is willing to wait that long when things need to change NOW

And by voting for either major party NOW, they guarantee that there will be no significant changes EVER.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply (4, Insightful)

Znork (31774) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188466)

You guys really need to get rid of the winner takes all system and get proportional representation. The vulnerability and failings of two-party democratic systems have become obvious; it's damn cheap to buy two candidates, and the purchasers know they wont have to buy anyone else.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15188399)

I really don't understand why people vote for politicians who are bought & sold so easily (and cheaply).

Because most people are bought even cheaper and more easily?

Bought by Red Hat? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15188432)

FTA:
The SIIA's board of directors includes Symantec, Sun Microsystems, Oracle, Intuit and Red Hat.

Why is Red Hat buying politicians to expand the DMCA? Aren't they supposed to be the good guys?

Just apply the death penalty and be done with it.. (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188451)

Why pussy around with incremental steps in copyright law? We all know where it's heading...

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (1)

lendude (620139) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188489)

...not Hedy Lamar, that's Headley Lamar!

Where's my froggie, where's my froggie? Kribbit...that was close.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188543)

hater of immigrants

I've always wondered how the heck can US citizens hate immigrants. That's ridiculous right? Is Lamar a Native American?

Translation of bill: (1)

stunt_penguin (906223) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188570)

Copyright violation doubleplus-ungood. Seek maximum punishment.

Amerika (3, Insightful)

bazmail (764941) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188387)

What are you americans going to do about this? You are always bleating on about how free your contry is, but you always seem to let stuff like this happen. What gives? No other country in the world is as repressive in this regard.

Time after time you sit back and watch as newer and wackier laws are passed, each one erodes your freedoms more and more. You guys crack me up.

Re:Amerika (2, Insightful)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188396)

but you always seem to let stuff like this happen.

Don't worry. Just wait two years, and the same kind of law will be passed as an EU directive.

Remember, EU is the place where "Intellectual Property" without restrictions was to be protected by the new constitution on the same level (or rather: above) more usual constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech and right to live.

Re:Amerika (5, Insightful)

HuguesT (84078) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188450)

Sorry, where did you get this "information" ?

Anyway, the old "new" constitution is dead in the water right now thanks to French and Dutch voters. ATM the EU is seriously annoying Microsoft over its overly militant use of IP to squash competition, whereas we all know how it worked out in the US.

I wouldn't count the old EU out just right now.

Re:Amerika (0)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188485)

Sorry, where did you get this "information" ?

From article II-77-2 [eu.int] of the constitution.

Anyway, the old "new" constitution is dead in the water right now thanks to French and Dutch voters.

So we'd wish... Officially it's not yet dead, just "on hold". They are waiting a looooong time before doing any referendums in the remaining countries, hoping that the French and Dutch results will be "forgotten" by then, and won't influence these.

If they get 20 (out of 25) countries to vote for, it passes. Since the 2 rejections, several countries have ratified the constitution [bbc.co.uk] without much fanfare, usually by Parliament.

The case of Luxembourg is especially noteworthy: despite this country being very pro-European, and despite all major parties campaigning in favor of the constitution, it only passed by a very slim majority...

Re:Amerika (2)

HuguesT (84078) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188557)

The article in question says :

Article II-77 Right to property

1. Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. The use of property may be regulated by law insofar as is necessary for the general interest.

2. Intellectual property shall be protected.

Hardly something I'd say would be offensive.

The constitution is "on hold" because it's pretty much evident that today it would be defeated, at least in the UK, Sweden and Denmark, after the two "no". People have longer memories than individuals, I'm pretty sure the constitution will not pass in its present state.

Mind you I'm of the opinion that even the "old" constitution is many times better than what passes for rules in the present EU.

The main problem is that the constitution is for the most part unreadable. No one can understant what's in there, short of making this undertaking one's career.

Re:Amerika (4, Insightful)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188594)

2. Intellectual property shall be protected.
Hardly something I'd say would be offensive.

It is patently offensive (no pun intended), if you compare it with the corresponding paragraph in the US constitution [cornell.edu] :

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
You note that the US text severly limits scope of intellectual property:
  • it is limited in time
  • it should only be upheld if it helps foster progress
Both safeguards are lacking from the EU constitution. The sentence about Intellectual property is incredibly short and blunt, without any ifs and buts.

The IP article in the EU constitution paves the road to perpetual copyrights and software patents.

Most other stipulations in the EU constitution have all kinds of exceptions where the rights granted should not apply. Not so intellectual property (which is not even defined! ... and so could conceivably be redefined in the future to include all kinds of corporate rights of which aren't even yet included into today's nightmares...)

Re:Amerika (1)

Stellian (673475) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188580)

Remember, EU is the place where "Intellectual Property" without restrictions was to be protected by the new constitution on the same level (or rather: above) more usual constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech and right to live.

Title II makes no such claims. It simply states: "Intellectual property shall be protected.", towards it's end.
As a programmer, I am certainly aware that the right to live or the right to an education is useless for me without protection of the intelectual property, since I will not aford living or getting that education.
Not even the GPL works without protection of the intelectual property.

Re:Amerika (3, Informative)

bri2000 (931484) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188508)

I wouldn't. For all its whining about US cultural imperialism when it comes to IP law the EU will, I believe, ultimately always follow the US's lead. Since once it's passed in the US it's much easier for the IP companies to lobby and demand that the EU needs similar measures in the name of "harmonisation" and "a level playing field", and the more Americaphile member's of the EU (like Blair) are lobbied by US officials directly.

Sure, the constitution's dead (for now, I'm sure once the French domestic situation has calmed down a bit they'll get it through somehow) but that doesn't stop our equivalent of the DCMA, the IP directive passed last year being in full force and effect. While the EU may be reeling from the blows of last year it's still very powerful and, because of the lack of democratic accountability, it's far easier for lobbyists to get their own way in Brussels even when individual nations may strongly reject specific proposals.

Re:Amerika (1)

HuguesT (84078) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188596)

Actually both the Dutch and French oppositions to the EU proposed constitution were to my mind amazingly mature, reasoned, sensible and thus hard to refute. They predated any societal issues that France has been having recently, and they are not going away. Most established politicians had an incentive for the text to be accepted, and in both countries all the major parties, both ruling and in the opposition, were in favour of the constitution and campained for its adoption. Yet the text was soundly defeated.

The main point of contention was essentially that the EU regulations tend to be overly complex and byzantine. This is not what you want in a constitution, full stop.

Re:Amerika (1)

Mjlner (609829) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188538)

"Anyway, the old "new" constitution is dead in the water right now thanks to French and Dutch voters."

Well, yes and no. It's not completely dead yet. We still have the "Good Doggie!"-countries like Finland that are urging the ratification of said constitution, without letting the voters decide. Whereas some countries, like Germany, have come with a wise proposition to only include the most essential rights in the constitution, the government of Finland wants to hear none of it.

I love this country, we follow every EU directive, even the more draconian ones, to the letter, only more so [afterdawn.com] , but when it comes to state monopolies, which are not very popular in the EU, we fight to the death for our rights to uphold them. The reason? We (our government) always need to take the course which is least popular among the Finnish population.

Re:Amerika (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15188453)

that's a pretty constructive response, wait a while & it'll happen to you? You've absolutely hit the nail on the head with your implicit acceptance of the status quo - that you, as the populace of allegedly free nation, are utterly powerless.

Re:Amerika (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188505)

Remember, EU is the place where "Intellectual Property" without restrictions was to be protected by the new constitution ... but... it was voted down, as was software patents.

Of course, one can paint future doomsday scenarios, but what's saying the same thing wouldn't happen again? I'd think that since these matters have now been brought up, politicans have been informed enough to vote down these things, that the logical thing should be that these would be even easier voted down in the future. I think EU was at the highest risk of accepting these things when they were first brought up, because at a first glance to uninformed politicians, they may look really good.

Re:Amerika (2, Insightful)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188531)

.. but... it was voted down,

Unfortunately, it was only voted down in two whoopping countries. It passed in almost all others.

as was software patents.

Yes, but softpats were only voted down after years of huge efforts by the FFII and others. During the same period, we couldn't concentrate on other, similar issues (IP Enforcment, EUCD), which passed. Unfortunately, we didn't have enough resources to fight several battles at once :-(

Re:Amerika (1)

SillyNickName4me (760022) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188528)

Remember, EU is the place where "Intellectual Property" without restrictions was to be protected by the new constitution on the same level (or rather: above) more usual constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech and right to live.

Even if that were true, you may have noticed that they did not manage to get this constitution accepted, not the least because of people voting against it.

We are still waiting for you Americans to actually shoot such an insane law down...

Re:Amerika (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188572)

Even if that were true, you may have noticed that they did not manage to get this constitution accepted, not the least because of people voting against it.

They voted against it in two whoopping countries. However, it takes 5 nos to definitely kill the text.

In some countries, the referendum has been put "on hold" waiting for more "favorable" climate (people forgetting why French and Dutch voted against). It is thus important to keep awareness of the issues, in order to prevent a yes-vote by ignorance.

Moreover, if indeed no will prevail, a new text will have to be proposed. In that case, we need to keep awareness as well, in order to make sure that the new text fixes all the issues, rather than only the most glaring ones.

Re:Amerika - Why was the parent modded down? (1, Funny)

Mjlner (609829) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188441)

For crying out loud!!! This guy points out that American freedom of speech is going through dire straits. And what do Slashdot moderators do? Mod him down, ie. silence him. That exactly proves how right he is. Do you really think that you somehow improve freedom of speech by silencing the voices pointing out that your first amendment rights are in deep trouble???

MOD PARENT UP!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15188445)

i don't usualy do this, but he is 100% correct. When are we going to stand up to this? Our forfathers did not fight and die for this!

Re:Amerika (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188462)

I am an American citizen, born into it, so to speak, and I never say America is free.

Re:Amerika (1)

SpaceballsTheUserNam (941138) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188513)

You've got it all wrong. This law is helping to prevent terrorism, thus ensuring our freedom.

Re:Amerika (1, Insightful)

lendude (620139) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188521)

To paraphrase a Lou Reed lyric:

"...stick a fork in their ass and turn 'em over - they're done"

Re:Amerika (1)

ufoot (600287) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188544)

> No other country in the world is as repressive in this regard.
Maybe because no other country in the world makes so much money from activities related to so-called "intellectual property"...

The definition of terrorism (5, Interesting)

scsirob (246572) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188388)

Is it me or are people, better yet, politicians forgetting what terrorism really is? Terrorism is spreading fear by inflicing selective pain to force a decision. This kind of bill does exactly that. It inflicts pain on small businesses trying to make a living, and forcing everyone to pay up to the big companies and patent/IP leeches. Probably the same leeches that sponsor this senator..

Let me guess, everyone opposing this bill will be labelled as 'unpatriotic', 'pro-terrorism' etc?!?

Since 9/11 (4, Insightful)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188410)

anyone trying to pass a contraversial bill uses the spectre of terror to stifle dissent. The relevant quote is

During a speech in November, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales endorsed the idea and said at the time that he would send Congress draft legislation. Such changes are necessary because new technology is "encouraging large-scale criminal enterprises to get involved in intellectual-property theft," Gonzales said, adding that proceeds from the illicit businesses are used, "quite frankly, to fund terrorism activities."

What's being suggested is that MP3 downloaders are directly responsible for suicide bombings! We know how rediculous this is but...

Re:The definition of terrorism (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15188413)

What the fuck are you blathering about? Listen to yourself. Idiot.

Yes and no (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15188460)

Is it me or are people, better yet, politicians forgetting what terrorism really is?

People often forget what terrorism really is: Useful for politicians.

But politicians never forget.

Re:The definition of terrorism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15188493)

How can you not say that copyright infringement is not terrorism? Skilled artists such as Britney Spears have to live on the street because they can't afford proper housing! Sony are merely trying to manage consumers' digital rights and you boycott them, mock them and label them as 'untrustworthy'. And you claim that they're the terrorists!

Re:The definition of terrorism (1)

helioquake (841463) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188501)

The word "Terroism" became such a convenient word to use as a wild card in order to gain voters' attention toward a congress person.

Why would that work? It's not that the politicians forget what it means, I don't think. It is more likely that the voters are just becoming dumber and stupider when it comes to what "terrorism" means.

Re:The definition of terrorism (0, Troll)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188514)

The *real* definition of terrorism is Islamic fascism. Of course, speaking this truth would be politically incorrect. As such, the term "terrorism" has been molded and melded into various issues by the politicos in office in order to maintain power.

Don't worry; it will get worse...much worse after Iran detonates an atomic bomb over Israel.

Re:The definition of terrorism (1)

polar red (215081) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188537)

as i have said before : patriotism is the new religion. The religion as opium for the masses (quote unquote Karl marx). Religion is a tool of the corporate overlords. Keep the people stupid and don't let them think for themselves.

Fund terrorism? (3, Informative)

reldruH (956292) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188390)

Why is it that every time a politician wants to get something passed that's obviously not going to be good, they do it because it 'funds terrorism'? Next thing you know politicians are going to fund some study saying that open source funds terrorism.

Oh, wait... [theregister.co.uk]

Re:Fund terrorism? (5, Funny)

plankrwf (929870) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188427)

Well, obviously open source is going to help terrorits:
imagine all the extra time they need not spend on system administration:
obviously they would have more time actually planning terroristic attacks!

Would be a thought though: give all the Al Quaida's of this world the newest of newest of computers
with all the newest propriotory software, just to see them fail as a terroristic
club seeing that they spend all their time actually getting their systems up and running.
We would see newsitems like:
ThisJustIn: Bin Laden proclaims next suicide hit to occur moments after Vista finally released.

Roel

Re:Fund terrorism? (1)

wrmrxxx (696969) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188438)

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. They don't blame terrorism every time - sometimes they blame child porn instead.

Re:Fund terrorism? (2, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188494)

Yes, but either child porn causes terrorism or terrorism causes child porn, so they obviously lead to the same thing.

Re:Fund terrorism? (1)

Alarash (746254) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188471)

I'd like to see the reasoning behind this. Intellectual Property Protection Act doesn't sound like a bad idea. It's a good idea to protect intellectual property, too bad we know the IP is used and abused by big companies. I don't see the need for a bill, though, since there are already laws in place

As for the IP crimes are funding terrorism, duh. I'd like to know how downloading an anti-virus and downloading a crack is funding terrorism. Are all these .ru websites with their porn ads ran by terrorists? And don't get me started with "Open Source invites terrorism". Just because you know how something is made doesn't allow you to bypass its protection. I can see the code of GPG [gnupg.org] , it doesn't mean I can crack a GPG-encrypted file in less than a few million years.

Last but not least, drug financing terrorism. Well, it sort of does (or did anyway). Drug is the best way to make money with little risks (for the bosses anyway), given the low production cost, and huge street price. Margins are the largest in the world. So yeah, I guess some of the investments of terrorist groups are in there. But hey, big new. If you want to cut down a lot of this market, make the major illegal "drug", the marijuana, legal. It's not like you can't find any if you want to. It'll also lower crime rate, give the governments a new product to tax a,d increase the quality of the product. And it won't turn your youth to potheads ; look at Netherlands, there are actually less people smoking pots there than in countries where it's illegal.

Re:Fund terrorism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15188602)

The US funded the Taliban and trained al-qaeda and suddenly they act as if terorism is a bad thing?

The CIA promoted terrorism, US foreign policy promoted terrorism and when the tards in the White(wash)house have made amends for that, there's a chance we can talk about non-tangible assets.

Just one name... (3, Insightful)

Intosi (6741) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188392)

I'll give you just one name to remember: McCarthy.

Charlie McCarthy, great puppet... (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188407)

Oh, you mean that senator guy? Sorry, everytime I bring up McCarthy to anyone in my general area, if they think of anything, it's that puppet.

Joseph McCarthy is easy to remember (1)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188512)

Oh, you mean that senator guy? Sorry, every time I bring up McCarthy to anyone in my general area, if they think of anything, it's that puppet.

His name is easy to remember. It is a well known fact that at least half of all known evil historical figures have been called Joseph. For example, there is McCarthy and Stalin who terrorized both superpowers with witch-hunts, Dr Josef Mengele who vivisected Jews and Dr Joseph Goebbels who took care of Nazi Germany's propaganda campaign. I have heard it speculated that Gengis Kahn had his friends call him "Joseph" when he sacked Beijing and that Caligula was born "Gaius Josephius Caesar Germanicus" before changing his name to take people by surprise. Ok, maybe I just made those last two up.

All these Josephs, who can keep track... (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188571)

...now if his name had been Charlie.

Also, in America, they're so hopped up on Joseph being the father of Jesus and Joseph, the guy that brought Israel into Egypt in the first place, both of which is thought of as good things, that they want to forget any bad people with the name "Joseph".

Re:Just one name... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15188581)

Wow, talk about overrated moderations. This one takes the fucking cake.

I bet you could've been given position as co-admin of the site if you said Hitler instead of McCarthy, I mean that's an even bigger name to drop into the pool of hyperbole, Slappy McAsscheeks.

give me example (4, Insightful)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188393)

IP crime' which which are used to 'quite frankly, fund terrorism activities,' according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Does anybody remember a case that even remotely supports that assertion? Any free-swappping IRA members?

Re:give me example (1)

bazmail (764941) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188408)

*psssst*, you lookin ta buy some o dat Windaz XP there laddy?

Re:give me example (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188440)

Does anybody remember a case that even remotely supports that assertion?

Nope, and even if you did the causality is really spurious. Real IP crime, by which I don't mean filesharing but counterfeit goods sold for profit, is a way to earn money. Terrorism is as far as I can tell a money sink, it costs money. Even if you find some case somewhere that says "Pirate funded terrorism", is it more common than "Regular worker funded terrorism out of his paycheck" or "Pirate funded luxurious lifestyle"? I think not.

Terrorism! (4, Funny)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188394)

How can I put this in a way politicians will understand?

Misinformed articles fund terrorism!

I wonder how long before... (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188459)

"Computers or other equipment seized must be "destroyed" or otherwise disposed of, for instance at a government auction."

I wonder how long before the first "Laptop computer bought at government auction was full of mp3 files" story appears...

More benefits (3, Insightful)

plankrwf (929870) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188400)

And there are even more benefits to the new bill: not only it is good against terrorism,
it also helps against child pornography.

Oh, and against overweight.

Roel

No more... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15188404)

I'm done buying all major movies and cd's. I'm still hooked on tv for my sports games, but it's becoming increasingly easy to just go to a local bar and watch them.

Of course, I'll probably have to start paying when someone else patents my liver.

Trying to copy will be a crime? (1)

octopus72 (936841) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188412)

So, Betty tries to copy a borrowed blu-ray disc which triggers a player device to phones home and a day later police knocks on her door.

Re:Trying to copy will be a crime? (1)

tmossman (901205) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188449)

Exactly. And her sentence? According to TFA, "such willful attempts at piracy, even if they fail, could be punished by up to 10 years in prison."

Meanwhile, the average federal manslaughter sentence is just under three years [mandatorymadness.org] .

Re:Trying to copy will be a crime? (1)

Loconut1389 (455297) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188502)

If you want someone's IP, its a lower sentence to kill them and steal their identity.

Not that I think manslaughter or murder people should be out in less time, but 10 years for copying 'something' (disk/code/whatever) is assinine.

Our justice system is definitely screwed up. Unfortunately, not every crime falls into their little box of prescribed outcomes. Murders get out sooner than hackers, etc. I am happy to live in America, since it could be much worse elsewhere, but at the same time, I frown at our legal system- especially with regards to technology.

Re:Trying to copy will be a crime? (1)

lorelorn (869271) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188566)

So, Betty tries to copy a borrowed blu-ray disc which triggers a player device to phones home and a day later police knocks on her door.

Well of course that's not what would happen. I mean, come on.

What actually happens is that armed NSA agents bust her door down, hand her over to the military, and ship that terrorist bitch to Guatanamo!

Re:Trying to copy will be a crime? (1)

simon_clarkstone (750637) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188582)

So, Betty tries to copy a borrowed blu-ray disc which triggers a player device to phones home and a day later police knocks on her door.
Ah, no, you don't understand this bill, clearly. Arresting everyone who breaks these laws would be too expensive. Most of the time, you just record it and don't do anything. Then, when everyone is a criminal, you have arbitrary powers of arrest, which are the best thing to stop Terrorists. The best bit is that it is totally legal, because they're criminals.

This post brought to you by my paranoia.

Knowledge based economy (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15188421)

" Permits wiretaps in investigations of copyright crimes, trade secret theft and economic espionage...."

You decide your economy will be 'knowledge' based, rather than making and selling things.
You create a bunch of artificial rights, that concentrate money in the hands of a few companies and remove them from everyone else.
But it doesn't work, your economy becomes uncompetitive, runs up a huge trade deficit. The companies become fat and lazy and the world doesn't buy their shit products.
Your currency can't sustain it and starts to fall.
You have to grab assets, oil! Iraq here we come, oil can save us.
But there isn't enough oil in Iraq and they don't elect the leader you chose for them.
What can you do to make this knowledge based economy work? Try bigger penalties, more spying on the population, 10 years in prison for minor infringement. Force through treaties on trade partners, desparate measures are called for to prevent the USA economy from collapsing the way the Soviet Union did when it spent too much money.

Would it not be more cost effective (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15188439)

... to just execute everyone who knows the differnce between the back and front of a monitor? Then we can finally realise the glorious offshoring of everything technical.

Re:Would it not be more cost effective (1)

quintesse (654840) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188591)

The Khmer Rouge tried that and it didn't work for them either.

Throw my mom in jail! (1)

dotmax (642602) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188442)

So i can have my mom sent off to camp exwray for the pages upon pages of Neil Boortz Fair Tax crap she's been transcribing?? Woohoo!!

Anybody else upset. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15188443)

That Red Hat is on the board of directors of some
organisation (SIAA) that supports this bill. I know
I will now be recommending any other linux vendor for
enterprise support.

Re:Anybody else upset. (4, Interesting)

symbolic (11752) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188463)

I find it rather ironic that Redhat would come within a mile of such a fetid mess. I'm also surprised (and quite saddened) that Sun Microsystems is involved.

Support http://www.ipaction.org/ [ipaction.org] - it might be one of the only practical ways to get something done about this kind of nonsense.

Re:Anybody else upset. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15188496)

Sun being there is no surprise, they've been simultaneously trying to love us and kill us for years, now. RedHat though, they need to do something about that, pronto.

Now computers will be illegal (5, Interesting)

Bomarc (306716) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188447)

From the article:
"Smith's measure would expand those civil and criminal restrictions. Instead of merely targeting distribution, the new language says nobody may "make, import, export, obtain control of, or possess" such anticircumvention tools if they may be redistributed to someone else. "
Now one can not make, import, export, obtain control of, or possess computers, as they are the primary tool for anticircumvention. (Copyright infringement). I've always wanted to sell software somewhere, available for download. If someone isn't authorized to download it (and does), contact MS and tell them that they are selling software that violates the DMCA, (by selling software the circumvents copy protection) and to stop selling all copies of Windows.

last of accurate inf. comes from....... lou dobbs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15188456)

yikes almighty. is there anything left worth keeping? kudos to mr. dobbs anyway.

meanwhile: the same corepirate nazi felons are STILL running US DOWn?

what a surprise? like corn passing through a bird's butt?

all they want is... everything. at what cost to US? not a pretty picture at all. quite infactdead from our viewpoint.

for many of US, the only way out is up.

don't forget, for each of the creators' innocents harmed (in any way) there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/US as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile will not be available after the big flash occurs.

'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi life0cidal glowbull warmongering execrable.

some of US should consider ourselves very fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate.

it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc....

as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis.

concern about the course of events that will occur should the corepirate nazi life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order.

'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

The old chestnut about funding terrorism (1)

Zog The Undeniable (632031) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188468)

Please explain how downloading a .torrent funds anyone at all.

Re:The old chestnut about funding terrorism (2, Funny)

ronanbear (924575) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188541)

1 Rip collection of CDs and DVDs
2 Upload torrents to botnet
3 ???
4 Profit!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Bloody bull (1)

jer2eydevil88 (960866) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188472)

I'm sick... literally.... another ignorant government attempt to stop progressive technology from being created.... I want every representative to actually be forced to use a locked down drm enforced PC where they have to request permission to do anything from sending email to rebooting...

These people dont have sense of proportion (5, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188480)

Kill a man, you get 20 years in jail. 'Steal' 20 bucks worth of software, you get 10. People should be made pass an iq test before being admitted into congress or legal services. It is apparent that many of the 'lawmakers' do not have any tint of the sense of 'proportionality'.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion (1)

RPoet (20693) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188499)

Kill a man, you get 20 years in jail. 'Steal' 20 bucks worth of software, you get 10.

And if you do it again after you get out, you get 20 new years.

Tell me again how the U.S. is not a fascist regime [rense.com] ?

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion (5, Insightful)

ag0ny (59629) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188520)

People should be made pass an iq test before being admitted into congress or legal services. It is apparent that many of the 'lawmakers' do not have any tint of the sense of 'proportionality'.

Wrong. They're smart and know very well what they're doing. The problem are the uninformed, uneducated masses who rush to vote for them as soon as any proposed new law has either "terrorism" or "children" attached to it.

They're taking advantage of this, and there's nothing you can do to avoid it, other than informing and educating as many people as you can. Do you think it's a coincidence that the education budget in the US is being cut?

I pity you Americans. Your country is going down the drain.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion (4, Insightful)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188547)

Kill a man, you get 20 years in jail. 'Steal' 20 bucks worth of software, you get 10.

Solution: kill the man who saw you steal that 20 bucks worth of software, if you think you have a 50% chance of not getting caught.

Communists - terrorists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15188503)

Pirates are moving up in the world. Going from communists to terrorists.

Everything against the benefit of the few (4, Interesting)

omeg (907329) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188504)

It seems that according to the US government, everything that opposes the benefit of the few is ultimately one of the many forms of terrorism. This is the regime that the people you voted for are upholding. It bothers me that they can get away with it, but I guess that it's not possible for America to start using a pluriform multi-party system which I firmly believe would help keep the amount of insane propositions like this one at bay, like it effectively does in the Netherlands.

I guess that at this point there is not much pouting is going to do to help!

How to control the populace (5, Informative)

Bushcat (615449) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188506)

1) Write laws that will catch everyone sometime.
2) Trawl for lawbreakers at your leisure.
3) Pick 'em up when it's suitable.
Someone needs a whack with a cluestick. It's not the way to run a (decent) country.

The new order (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188522)

Don't buy food or equipment, don't use services or entertainment, don't invest in a business or an idea. Collect all you make and bribe your local politician. The only sane way you can be sure your money won't support terrorism.

Scare Tactics (4, Insightful)

zaguar (881743) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188532)

OH NOES!! TEH TEROORISTS IS COMING!!!one1! WITH PIRATED DVD'S

Sorry about that, but this is going too far. Terrorism and child pornography are bad, yes, but attempts to prevent them are not worth the loss of our rights. In the other story about this kind of thing, I forgot who said it, but it went something like this - "Terrorism and Child Porn are the root passwords to the constitution". It's a sad time for the land of the free.

RIAA and copyright protection (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188539)

It would be interesting to see how far RIAA is willing to go with penalties for copyright infrigement. They're in favor of this one, sure, but how would media be protected if they wrote the laws, and how would the penalties look like? Only after knowing this would one truly know how disconnected they are from reality and proportional penalties to crimes.

What causes terrorism (5, Insightful)

Shohat (959481) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188542)

Not IP , or child porn , lack of prayer or homosexuals .
WarMongering Idiots on one side and Religious Fundamentalist Psychos on the other cause terrorism .
So how about the WMI&RFP restriction Act ?

Say it with me folks.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15188555)

HAIL THE LEADER! VICTORY! WELFARE!

Actually, that's an understatement because a regime like the one hitler envisioned could only dream of bullshit like this.

If this gets passed and now that people are finding out the extent of howmuch they're being screwed over, there's going to be a lot of violence when masses of people start getting arrested and thrown in jail and all of their belongings being taken by the government/corporations as "evidence" against them and then being drained of all financial resources.

Instead of debtors prisons, it's going to be "IP theft" prisons that will start popping up all over.
This country is at an end. The government has failed us, democracy is dead. simple as that.
Think bush is going out in 2008? hell no. why do you think he's so unconcerned with his dropping approval rating? he's gonna pull a fast one in '08, or is going to do as much damage as possible before he gets kicked out.

Next election, vote independent. not libertarian either. Independent actually lets you choose officials instead of parties. ...well if there is a next election... which I do have serious doubts there will be one.

The idiots and greedy assholes have won. there are too many of them in power, and since most of their power is protected by terrorism and anti-terrorism measures, laws like this will continue until there are no laws, just punishments based personal likes and dislikes and against dissent of any type.

Australians, Canadians, British, Europeans, and Indians; don't think you're safe either. You all do trade with us and the groups who support this have interests in your countries as well, meaning you all will have similar laws in place soon as well, plus with australia, you have to follow any copyright laws we create because of the FTA.

The era of freedom is over. As in history, freedom only lasts so long until those in power see it as no longer necessary to their interests. again will be centuries of worldwide oppression and slavery.

Bin Laden (1)

sikandril (924466) | more than 8 years ago | (#15188559)

So I guess this is how Bin Laden made all his money, selling burned dvd's of "rush hour 2" at the Kuwaiti main bazaar...

This is a low-brow, ignorant argument made by an ignoramus for an audience of compliant sheep. Quite frankly it taints the credibility of the American legislative system. Could you please tell me what is exactly going on in Congress? Too much Viagra? Too little connection with reality?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?