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!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Copy That Floppy, Lose Your Computer

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the god-bless-america-land-of-the-super-corporation dept.

United States 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.

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

So? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21642875)

Do the crime, serve the time. What's the difference?

Re:So? (5, Informative)

ShawnCplus (1083617) | more than 6 years ago | (#21642897)

You would not need to be found guilty at trial to face this penalty.
That bypasses the "Do the crime" bit since they haven't proven you've actually done the crime.

Re:So? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21643017)

Even more so: since you do not have to be found guilty, I think that would very clearly be an unconstitutional Government "Taking" denial of Due Process. It's one thing to ask if corporate lobbiests have a grip on the government but quite another to ask ARE THESE PEOPLE COMPLETELY MAD?!

A visit from the spelling police (5, Funny)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643179)

Even more so: since you do not have to be found guilty, I think that would very clearly be an unconstitutional Government "Taking" denial of Due Process. It's one thing to ask if corporate lobbiests...
Let's take a moment to check your spelling...

Hm... Lobby, lobbier, lobbiest...

OK, it all checks out... You can go about your business. Move along.

Re:A visit from the spelling police (3, Funny)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643347)

I think he just coined a term for "the most lobbying corporate lobbyists".

Re:So? (5, Insightful)

enjerth (892959) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643301)

Nobody challenged it when "drug dealers" were deprived of their money and belongings, without due process.

This is just the next chapter.

Indeed (4, Interesting)

Deagol (323173) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643295)

So, let's count the ways The Man can seize one's assets w/o due process. We have the Never Ending War on Drugs, where if you are incidentally present during a drug "crime" (say, you get pulled over for speeding, and the cops find pot on your buddy and you had no idea), they can impound and sell your car. More recently, the SCOTUS has decided that privates citizens are trumped by commercial interests in Imminent Domain cases, where you are given a take-it-or-leave-it pittance offer for your real estate so the next big box store or McMansion developer can break ground.

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.

Re:So? (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643311)

Given the do the crime bit, I know to have a law declared unconstitutional, you have to go to court, which ostensibly means you have to violate the law and put yourself at risk.

Would it be possible file a class action lawsuit against congress for passing unconstitutional laws (derliction of duties, public endagerment, etc)?

Re:So? (5, Interesting)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643433)

So what? If they search your car and find drugs they can keep pthe car, even if your case doen't go to trial. You lost that right long ago in their war on some drugs. The US has become a police state [kuro5hin.org] .

...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Except after your 4th amendment rights aren't violated when they search your car and they find a little baggie of pot under the back seat. They take the car! No trial, nothing. Even if you go to trial on the drug charge and are found not guilty, they still keep the car.

A few years ago the newspapers reported that there was a soldier who was pulled over for driving a used car while black in some little redneck state down south. They searched the car and found cocaine in the door panels. He was arrested and his car confiscated. It turned out that he had bought the car three weeks earlier, and the cocaine came with the car. Nobody knew how it got there. The soldier was released without any charges being filed- but he never got the car back.

So much for that part of the 5th amendment.

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:So? (2, Insightful)

Codifex Maximus (639) | more than 6 years ago | (#21642903)

Ever hear of something called the Magna Carta? If not then you should read it.

Re:So? (2, Funny)

stewbee (1019450) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643429)

I sure if you asked Dennis Kucinich, he would lend you his pocket copy.
from http://www.wikiality.com/Dennis_Kucinich [wikiality.com]

What else does Kucinich carry around?
On October 15, 2007, Kucinich emptied his pockets onto The C-Desk revealing:
* The Communist Manifesto
* a pocket Magna Carta
* His lucky charms
* a tea cup, tea pot with water, and sugar (or more likely some type of communist sweetener)
* A pocket Rosetta Stone
* the Pocket Stephen Colbert
* Pocket I Am America (And So Can You!) (after Dr. Colbert gave him a pocket-sized copy)

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21642911)

Maybe because were missing a crucial step our laws seem to have. Mainly, be proven you did the crime before you do the time.

This seems to skip a step and go right from accusing to jail-time and or long legal battles to even prove it wasn't you. What happened to due course in US?

Re:So? (3, Insightful)

jeffasselin (566598) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643079)

You DO realize Bush has already suspended Habeas Corpus right? For "terrorists", in theory, but wait till they amend this law to label people who do "illegal copying" (or anyone who does anything that deprives any big corporation of profits) as an "economic terrorist".

Although the US courts have blasted him and congress again and again over that, he keeps going at it.

Re:So? (2, Informative)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643177)

it's been suspended in the UK for a long time, ever since the introduction of fixed penaltys for certain offences that can just be handed out by police officers, or general busy boddies employed by councils.

one example would be a man who was handed a £60 fine for littering when he threw a used match stick out of his car window.

Littering (4, Insightful)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643335)

one example would be a man who was handed a £60 fine for littering when he threw a used match stick out of his car window.
That is harsh... But why did he throw it out his car window? Isn't that what the ashtray is for? (Drivers in the US never seem to bother using their ashtrays. Burning cigarettes dangle out the window, and then are cast aside when they're finished. It's like, what the hell, people? Why do you think that's OK?)

Re:Littering (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643389)

it has to be thrown away somewhere, maybe he thought spreading the organic matter around would help furtalise the country instead of it all ending up in landfill.

Re:So? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21643379)

Technically speaking, Bush hasn't suspended habeas corpus because the current legal theory is that the "terrorists" don't have any constitutional rights (and thus no rights under habeas corpus). "Can't suspend something you never had," says the Bush administration. Of course, this is currently being hotly contested in the courts.

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? (1)

pryoplasm (809342) | more than 6 years ago | (#21642913)

The difference is be accused of the crime, get the punishment and your computer auctioned off, regardless of guilt.

Back, in the USSA....

Re:So? (5, Interesting)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643141)

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? (0, Troll)

Typoboy (61087) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643239)

Yes, because with drug seizures, .* registration, etc.. the point isn't to Think of the Children, the point is gov't income.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21642955)

It is customary to be convicted of crimes in court before the penalty is assessed.

Re:So? (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643033)

Do the crime, serve the time. What's the difference?

The difference is that the US Constitution specifically prohibits this sort of search and seizure:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Takeaways are:
1. You MUST have a warrant before performing a seizure of someone's computer.
2. It is not up to Congress to decide to give a broad search and seizure privilege. Search and seizure is reserved for the Judicial Branch of government, and may ONLY be invoked when probably cause has been presented under oath in a court of law.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21643191)

The difference is that the US Constitution specifically prohibits this sort of search and seizure
yes, but it's just a piece of paper! /flee

Re:So? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21643115)

the slashdot kids don't believe in copyright. they think the world owes them a living, and free entitlement to everyone elses work.

Re:So? (1)

Doctor_Jest (688315) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643367)

Dan Glickman, is that you? C'mon, Danny! Stop posting AC!!! We wanna HUG YOU...

Dork.

Re:So? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643341)

"Do the crime, serve the time. What's the difference?"

I accuse you of copyright infringement. Hand over your computer, please.

Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21642889)

I for one welcome our new computer-nabbing overlords.

Re:Hmmm (3, Funny)

megaditto (982598) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643181)

And I welcome a new way to avoid paing electronics recycling charge!

Re:Hmmm (1)

Typoboy (61087) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643277)

Be sure to welcome the new PRO IP Assessment Surcharge on every transistor junction sold..

Bad URL (0)

ahecht (567934) | more than 6 years ago | (#21642893)

The link to the EFF in the article is http://slashdot.org/href= [slashdot.org] , which doesn't work for obvious reasons.

Re:Bad URL (5, Informative)

PlatyPaul (690601) | more than 6 years ago | (#21642947)

Fixed [eff.org] .

Re:Bad URL (5, Informative)

jamie (78724) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643355)

Please tag a story 'typo' when you see this. It'll alert us admins to a problem and it'll get fixed in probably less time than it takes to write a comment about it...

Re:Bad URL (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643383)

The link to the EFF in the article is http://slashdot.org/href= [slashdot.org] , which doesn't work for obvious reasons.


Pfft. You must be still on web 1.0.

Shot down for all the wrong reasons... (0, Troll)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#21642895)

I predict that many Republicans will oppose this bill, not because they are opposed to the idea of protecting an industry legislatively, but, becuase the industry that they would be tasked to protect is one that generally opposses them. I mean, what happens to the big bad liberal media if it goes belly up because it is obsolete? Kinda hard to make pro-socialist stuff, if your target audience doesn't want to pay for it...

Re:Shot down for all the wrong reasons... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21642991)

There's plenty of Republican media. (See: News Corp.) And they want this law just as much as the Democrats want it.

Expect bi-partisan support on this one. The only Republican likely to oppose it is Ron Paul, and solely since it requires expanding the government.

Re:Shot down for all the wrong reasons... (3, Interesting)

DarthMAD (805372) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643063)

As a Republican, I agree, but not necessarily for the same reasons. The big reason that Republicans should oppose this is that it creates more government bureaucracy - now I'm no crazy Ron Paul supporter who wants to get rid of every federal government institution, but really, this is not a good solution. I've always thought that government should stay out of this whole issue - it's costing the big media companies money, so they should be investing their money into stopping it. There's a reason that retail stores have security guards - it's cheaper for them in the long run to deter theft than to call the cops every time that something gets taken.

Re:Shot down for all the wrong reasons... (4, Insightful)

stretch0611 (603238) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643113)

"I predict that many Republicans will oppose this bill, ... but, becuase the industry that they would be tasked to protect is one that generally opposses them."

You forget the one thing that all politicians value most: The almighty dollar. Once the lobbyists start handing out "campaign donations" you will see every idiot believing in the wisdom of the RIAA/MPAA.

Of course my right to backup copies will be ignored because I do not even have the money to get my representative to blink. I only get lip service from him every two years near election time.

Re:Shot down for all the wrong reasons... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21643231)

The media generally opposes Republicans?

I haven't laughed so hard in a long time.

Republicans passed the Bono Act and the DMCA (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643279)

I predict that many Republicans will oppose this bill, not because they are opposed to the idea of protecting an industry legislatively, but, becuase the industry that they would be tasked to protect is one that generally opposses them.
If the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 and Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 primarily benefited an anti-Republican entertainment industry, why did the majority of Republicans vote for them?

Re:Shot down for all the wrong reasons... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21643319)

I predict that many Democrats will support this bill, not because they are supportive of the idea of protecting an industry legislatively, but, becuase the industry that they would be tasked to protect is one that generally opposses their enemies. I mean, what happens to the only good and just liberal media that fights the good cause if it goes belly up because it is obsolete? Kinda hard to educate the ignorant and hateful populace and stand for moral principles against the evil of the Republicans, if your target audience doesn't want to pay for it...

With added 80s music! (5, Funny)

PlatyPaul (690601) | more than 6 years ago | (#21642901)

In case you missed the message, Don't Copy That Floppy [youtube.com] !

(warning: may cause eye strain and/or brain damage)

Woohoo Lose a floppy copy a computer ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21642905)

In china copy a computer and you lose a floppy!

This is great! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21642907)

Since the intarweb is used to facilitate copyright infringement, the gov't can seize the entire series of tubes!

Well.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21642909)

This Anonymous Coward writes that Anonymous Coward writes that this was obvious from the last story regardless of what Kevin Way writes or what Kevin Way who is writing for Kevin Way writes.

A new AGENCY?! (5, Insightful)

Azuma Hazuki (955769) | more than 6 years ago | (#21642931)

An entire new agency in charge of stopping copyright violations. Wonderful. I am SO glad to know our government has its priorities straight.

Re:A new AGENCY?! (0, Offtopic)

WGFCrafty (1062506) | more than 6 years ago | (#21642995)

The kids which were alienated from SCHIP will be glad to see their mother country's climbing economy inversely apply to their health.

Re:A new AGENCY?! (5, Insightful)

jeffasselin (566598) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643189)

The government is by the people for the people. At least in theory.

But the politicians are those who enact laws, and although they are in theory elected by the people, such elections are only possible thanks to the big money corporations give them. So, yes, those politicians have their priorities very straight: helping those that give them the money they need to keep their jobs.

Re:A new AGENCY?! (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643243)

Makes sense. After all, this is about protecting the only market the US still has the upper hand and that generates more revenue internationally than it costs.

Take a look at the industry sectors. Agriculture? Heaps more imports than exports. Industry? Which? Production is outsourced to China. Service? Great, but you can only export a service when someone comes to you and consumes it, and leisure travel to the US isn't really too appealing with the rather xenophobic approach since 9/11.

So what's left is content and patents. News, entertainment, rights. To create an entire agency to protect what's left of the US commerce is quite logic.

So let me get this straight... (5, Insightful)

john_is_war (310751) | more than 6 years ago | (#21642939)

If someone on my schools network downloads an illegal mp3, then the RIAA has the right to confiscate and sell every single router, switch, and hub between the two people... clogging the tubes is bad enough, but taking them away and stealing them?

Re:So let me get this straight... (5, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643183)

I'd like to seem them try to take the router from the local ISP. That could cause some major problems. Or the DNS root server that facilitated the copyright infringement. Legislation like this shows that the lawmakers have absolutely no clue how the internet works.

Re:So let me get this straight... (3, Funny)

compro01 (777531) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643289)

Legislation like this shows that the lawmakers have absolutely no clue.
those last 4 words were pretty redundant.

Re:So let me get this straight... (4, Insightful)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643395)

Look at the (shudder) bright side.

With everybody's computer taken and sold, there is now going to be a booming market in new computers, all preloaded with Vista. What a windfall this shall be for the computer manufacturers and Microsoft.

How do you prove you've never downloaded anything off the internet? You can't. Doesn't matter if you have legal copies of the CDs you've ripped down to MP3 and stored on your computer, even if you have the reciepts for them, how do you prove you didn't just download them instead of ripping them from CD?

And the theory that absence of evidence doesn't mean absense of crime is rather disturbing to me.

Land of the !Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21642951)

In the United States of America
You are guilty
There is no need to prove you innocent.

How is this wrong? Let me count the ways... (5, Informative)

beef curtains (792692) | more than 6 years ago | (#21642961)

Amendment V

No person...shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I understand here that "due process of law" is actually being changed to make this legal, but I feel that the following serves to define "due process of law" in a way:

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Re:How is this wrong? Let me count the ways... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21643127)

Are you guys aware of the drug-related asset-forfeiture laws? Seems like the tools of the "War on Drugs" are being used in the "War on Copying". Talk about a "War on Freedom"...

Re:How is this wrong? Let me count the ways... (1)

marcop (205587) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643425)

I don't want to politicize this thread, but keeping the government small and out of my business is my priority. This is the reason I am voting for Ron Paul. Really, can he do any worse than GWB?

Re:How is this wrong? Let me count the ways... (5, Interesting)

mothlos (832302) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643253)

Look at civil forfeiture law in the US. The government can sue your property and is given the ability to seize and sell your property based on a mere probable cause that the property was used for criminal purposes.

http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/looting-of-america.html [isil.org]

Re:How is this wrong? Let me count the ways... (5, Informative)

wattrlz (1162603) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643299)

In addition: Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This may be your last chance... (5, Interesting)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#21642965)

leave the US while you can. Serious.

Well, let's see what happens in the next elections. If the people lose, you're welcome to establish here below the Bravo :)

Re:This may be your last chance... (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643085)

below the Bravo
Would that be Australia? It continuously seems to be a more and more attractive option compared to the alternatives.

Re:This may be your last chance... (1)

crymeph0 (682581) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643415)

I've been thinking New Zealand. I know they're practically the same, to most outsiders' eyes, but I've been to both Australia and New Zealand, and NZ seems to be more independent, that is to say they care less about what others tell them they should be doing, e.g. Iraq. I'm slightly more hopeful they would hold out longer, or at least give in less, to the kind of international enforcement of US laws the mother country would like to force on the world.

It can't happen here (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643423)

leave the US while you can. Serious.


"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.", as Sinclair Lewis said.

What happened to (1)

gwayne (306174) | more than 6 years ago | (#21642969)

governement of the people, for the people and by the people?

It seems like all we hear about lately is new laws to benefit big corporations.

Fuck 'em.

Re:What happened to (1)

dattaway (3088) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643077)

governement of the people, for the people and by the people?

Our country is very much defending the rights of people. Just change the definition of companies to people and terminate the troublesome humans.

Re:What happened to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21643413)

Big corporations are people.

Rich people, so obviously they are more important.

This post removed due to unnecessary copying... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21642971)

Kevin Way writes Kevin Way writes

Welp, that's it. (1)

Mex (191941) | more than 6 years ago | (#21642975)

US has officially jumped the shark.

Sorry, this just disappoints me so much, that the one time world power that represented freedom and was a beacon for what the rest of the world aspired to become, has sunk down to these sort of horrible government controls.

Laws are meant for the good of the people, I think this crosses the line.

Re:Welp, that's it. (2, Insightful)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643125)

US has officially jumped the shark.

Absolutely. Now - did that happen around the time of the civil war, or around the time of WWII?

I for one... (0)

Chas (5144) | more than 6 years ago | (#21642979)

welcome our new "You steal my song, I steal your computer(s)" copyright-protecting overlords.

Fuck us over some more! We love it! Whip us! Beat us! Make us write bad checks!

Giving credit where credit is due... (0, Offtopic)

M0ralGray (1125833) | more than 6 years ago | (#21642983)

"Kevin Way writes Kevin Way writes"

Another way (1)

JayTech (935793) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643005)

This is just another way that the government sets up to forcibly remove your money and property... Lawmakers will draft up every law they can think of, knowing that a certain percentage of people will "break" the law, slowly weaseling honest citizens out of their money through the back door. In this case, what do you want to bet they would make a killing selling the seized computers like they do with seized vehicles?

Based on other laws coming out in the USA (5, Insightful)

forgotten_my_nick (802929) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643013)

Based on other laws coming out in the USA in the last 8 years this isn't so bad. It just means you should do your copying on the latest most expensive machine in the local shop, report them then pick it up at auction for buttons.

Re:Based on other laws coming out in the USA (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643165)

Forget that. Pick up your neighbor's $3,000 system he uses for web browsing and file sharing for buttons!

Foolish Americans! (1)

PinkyDead (862370) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643035)

Now that you have had all your computers confiscated, you are ripe for conquest...

Wait, they've got stick with a nail in it! Run for your lives!

funny how... (4, Interesting)

Tom (822) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643041)

For the past five to ten years, lawmakers have passed an incredible number of laws that the courts had to sort out as unconstitutional. It's almost as if they abandoned sensible work for a "let's try everything and see what works" attitude.

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:funny how... (5, Insightful)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643411)

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.

Don't know if there's a trend, but it does happen a lot. I believe reason is for election grandstanding. Come the following election, some Congressman can say he's tough on X while his opponent's soft, where X=[crime, guns, drugs, violent games, porn, sex offenders, copyright, gay rights, etc]. This works well for both campaign ads as well as soliciting contributions from companies who take an interest in these matters. It doesn't matter if the courts kill the law; the poor guy still tried and it's not his fault those Commies on the bench ruined everything. Or so he says.

Similarly, that's also where you'll see the 417-3 votes, where somebody will sponsor a bill against killing kittens, with a line item here or there including funding for pork projects. Nobody can vote against your amendment without voting for killing kittens. And the three people who do vote against it will have fun come re-election time, when the opponent saturates TV with commercials that state how much the guy enjoys killing kittens.

Why bother with a judicial system? (4, Interesting)

jimicus (737525) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643073)

This is absurd. There's no point in even debating that.

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.

Makes sense on some levels (4, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643093)

This make sense to me in some ways. I know people who were caught poaching fish (catching more than their license allowed). They had their fishing rods taken away, as well as their boat, and the truck that they towed the boat, and just about anything else that was even remotely involved in the crime. It may seem a little excessive, but it's quite a deterrent. Getting your computer taken away for sharing copyrighted content seems to be in alignment with most of the other laws I've seen. Now if this is excessive, than maybe all the other consequences for a lot of other laws are also a problem, but that's a different issue.

Surely there is room for a trial in all of this? (1)

ctid (449118) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643333)

I mean, you can't have your stuff taken away just because somebody accuses you of some crime, can you?

Re:Makes sense on some levels (1)

Verteiron (224042) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643393)

If there was some way to verify 100% that the person whose computer you are seizing violated copyright law, then this might act as a deterrent. If, however, we judge by the way the ??AA has been lobbing their lawsuits around (suing people who don't own computers and such), this will merely act as a method for the government to pick up workstations on the cheap.

Protecting America (2, Interesting)

outlander78 (527836) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643131)

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).

Just what the hell is it with these people... (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643147)

...and stupid acronyms?

"Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property": PRO-IP

I mean, the shorthand name is useful in a way, since it (in this case, at least) gives you a pretty good idea of what the thing is about - but it really seems like the long form has no purpose other than to create the acronym. Specifically, "Prioritizing Resources and Organization" for what reason regarding "Intellectual Property"? "In Defense Of" might be nice. But then it'd spell "PROIDOIP", and we can't have that...

Now what I wonder is, what would happen if some new malware came out that would make a user's computer seek out and download random torrents? Man, that could be some real chaos, right there... (Oh, and I'm sure WHIPER would be simply heartbroken about it as they take the hapless victim's computer away to fund their agency...)

Brilliant! What could be a more Obvious Solution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21643155)

I am sure this will fix everything, no worries here.

Well, Americans (1)

rolfc (842110) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643157)

Looks as if the Media Industry is unstoppable, there is only one thing to do. Stop the money from reaching their banks, dont buy their products, dont listen to their music, dont see their movies. It will be 6 dull months, but then it is over and remember that there are independent music and film. Play Open Arena om Linux

Re:Well, Americans (2, Insightful)

east coast (590680) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643345)

Stop the money from reaching their banks, dont buy their products, dont listen to their music, dont see their movies

I recall saying this years ago when this question first arose and people kept on using the old "but it's not worth the price" argument to justify their theft. Are people so naive that they really think that this is a downhill battle?

If it's not worth paying for than it's not worth owning. For the most part it's piracy from the "but it's not worth the price" crowd that has allowed things to sink to this new low. The industry is convinced that these are lost sales, and some of them are. If you honestly believe it's not worth the price it's better to truely stick it to the industry by not bothering with the product at all regardless of how low the price goes.

Selective enforcement? (2, Insightful)

Lost Penguin (636359) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643169)

This just gives more "guns" to stop any real publication of criticism.
You write something the NeoCons/Republicans don't like, they invoke this; You may not be guilty of any "Illegal" copies, but the computers are still gone. This is the modern version of Nazi Germany's book burnings. /Will the computers be taken by the Firemen?

Re:Selective enforcement? (2, Interesting)

east coast (590680) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643219)

Yeah, because only Republicans are backing this up.

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:Selective enforcement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21643361)

The way to find out whether this is true or not is to
1) Write song
2) Register copyright
3) Accuse every congressperson who voted for that law of copying your song on their computers

Now, at this point, we'll have a half dozen people waving the constitution around and telling us how congressmen are protected from the laws they write while they're in office, but that doesn't matter, because now you can

4) Demand seizure of their computers despite your inability to take them to court

The precedent exists... (1)

Bullfish (858648) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643185)

in law already... if you are fishing without a license, they can technically take your boat and all your gear for example.

Well... (2, Funny)

Guanine (883175) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643221)

At least they didn't say it would "brick" the computer. Baby steps, folks.

Floppy ? (1, Informative)

Kohath (38547) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643269)

No one uses floppies any more, despite their conveniently rhyming with the word "copy".

Cute headline though. Too bad you decided to be cute instead of being clear and correct.

Poppycock! Balderdash! (5, Funny)

Stanislav_J (947290) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643273)

Are you suggesting that here, in the Land of the Free(TM), that the government would seize and auction off your assets for a copyright "crime" even if you haven't been adjudicated as guilty? Oh, come on.....next you'll try to tell me that they'll seize and auction your car and keep your cash if they even suspect you of having drugs! (Chuckle) Yeah....like that's gonna happen....

Hate your boss? Hate your company? (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643281)

Download some MP3s at work. In comes the MAFIAA, seizes all computers and your company goes down the loo. Whether the company has anything to do with it is irrelevant. Guilty 'til proven innocent. Well, even if proven innocent, the hardware is gone and won't come back.

Is that how I should imagine this?

Nothing new (1)

roggg (1184871) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643293)

There's nothing new here. The DEA has been seizing property for the last decade or longer, and placing the onus on American citizens to prove their innocence. So now the administration wants to extend it to property used in copyright violations as well. Civil Asset Forfeiture (google it, or here's something from 2001 to get you started: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/27/191414.shtml [newsmax.com] ) has not been overturned yet as it relates to the drug property. Why would anyone expect it to fail in the copyright arena? Face it, you have no right to property under the American constitution as it is currently being interpreted by the legislative and judicial branches.

So, this would mean.. (4, Interesting)

AJWM (19027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643297)

..that the BusyBox developers could have Verizon's servers seized for the GPL violations?

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.

Backlash! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21643323)

C'mon malware authors! Start making RIAA/MPAA PCs run bittorrent! With Vista, you can do it!

FUDgepackers not likely to 'self-destruct'... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21643339)

any time soon. particularly when payper liesense stock markup FraUD corepirate nazi advertiser fed robbIE shills for them with every..other made up storIE.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption.

fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way

do not be afraid/dismayed, it is the way it was meant to be.

the little ones/innocents must/will be protected.

after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit?

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.

all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven.

no need to fret (unless you're associated/joined at the hype with, unprecedented evile), it's all just a part of the creators' wwwildly popular, newclear powered, planet/population rescue initiative/mandate.

or, is it (literally) ground hog (as in dead meat) day, again? many of US are obviously not interested in/aware of how we appear (which is whoreabull) from the other side of the 'lens', or even from across the oceans.

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

750,000 jobs? (1)

sweatyboatman (457800) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643363)

from the Rep Conyers' "justification" site (and the department of made up numbers)

The bipartisan PRO IP bill is supported by both labor unions and industry groups because of the increasing global economic cost of counterfeiting and piracy - which is currently between $500 and $600 billion/year in lost sales and approximately 5% - 7% of global trade. It costs the United States between $200 and $250 billion/year in lost sales, including 750,000 jobs.


These numbers are completely ridiculous. Estimated costs in dollars are always nebulous and hard to disprove, but I find it hard to believe that anyone can justify the 750K jobs number.

Considering that the movie studios & music business seem to be doing just fine despite these "increasing global economic costs" I find it hard to believe they're going to be hiring 3-quarters of a million more people to do the exact same amount of work they're already doing.

The only jobs this bill is going to create are the Intellectual Property police that staff this new agency. And since they're going to be funded through seizures of private property, it's hard to see how that will act as anything but a leech on the economy.

Lost Sales (1)

SeeManRun (1040704) | more than 6 years ago | (#21643409)

The part I love most about these articles, is the money they say they lost. They assume that every downloaded song would have been purchased, which is obviously false. I doubt many people could afford their music archives if they paid a dollar a song or 10 dollars an album. I mean, the fact they have a 160GB iPod should be evidence that the industry thrives on piracy in some forms, and gets hurt by it in other ways. What ever happened to a band playing live shows to make money? I mean, the industry can put out junk, market it, and people buy it without the band every being seen live. Now they can't do that with the Internet, and it might actually be improving the quality of the music we get. I know of records that have 2 singles and the rest sound like filler, but that seems to be going away because if the whole album is not good, people just download it. Seems like improvement to me.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?