New Congressional Bill Makes DMCA Look Tame

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.

Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It's been said many times, but it bears repeating:

Child Porn is the root password to the US Constitution.

Terrorism is the alternate password.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

Err...

Unless I am mistaken, this is not retorical, it is a clear statement that piracy is being used to fund terrorism.

Frankly, someone in the US gov is taking lessons from the el presidente Antonio Bliar's book that any lie is OK provided that it is for the "just cause". Can we see some damn proof of at least one instance when this has happened?

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

Unless I am mistaken, this is not retorical, it is a clear statement that piracy is being used to fund terrorism

So when is oil becoming illegal?

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

For the most part I agree that blaming the congressmen for acts of congress is more politically productive, but I would submit that your view that this is separate from the executive's legislative agenda (and rest assured, it has one) is simplistic at best.

Part of what makes the Republican party so scary (besides the wacko puritan crazies that overran it about 25 years ago) is that it boasts a strong party loyalty amongst members of congress in a system that franly doesn't encourage it. Admittedly there are outliers like Ron Paul in the House and Lincoln Chafee and Olympia Snowe in the Senate but they are truly anomalies in an otherwise placid sea of party line voters. Part of that loyalty comes directly from executive strong-arming, particularly threats of not helping to fundraise for reelection (which can be crippling for a congressman). To say that Bush and his team bear no blame for the legislation coming out of their congressional colleage's collective asses is missing the forest for the trees. Especially when Mr. Gonzales is quoted in TFA as relating this legislative agenda to combatting terrorism. He's an executive officer, no doubt about it.

There is something to be said about politicians being bought and paid for, and particularly with legislation like this the largest pressure comes from industry lobbyists, but when you follow the money it also inevitably leads back to party and president (for the ruling party).

Now, ultimately, you are right in that focusing on Bush takes the attention off of some Members of Congress who richly deserve some democratically-imposed term limits, and because the picture is more complicated than you make it out to be, many of them will slip thorugh the cracks looking cleaner than they ought to. And that is a tragedy.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the immigration debate just dismantling this political regime as many MCs find themselves in a damn'd if ya do/dam'd if ya don't situation. It seems like the first time in a while that the republican stranglehold on the politcal consciences of its own MCs is breaking as they look to their own necks first.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

Still wrong - from the TFA:
"The draft legislation, created by the Bush administration and backed by Rep. Lamar Smith"

note - CREATED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

To quote, 'quite frankly, fund terrorism activities,' according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (in reference to copyright infringement).

Attorney General Gonzales was appointed by W. Bush, so it is entirely appropriate attack the Bush administration's doubletalk.

"Terrorism" is the new red scare, where a blanket term applies to anything unpatriotic and antigovernment.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

It was introduced by a Congressman.

Yep.

It sure was introduced by a Congressman. That doesn't mean that the Congressman wrote the bill.

The President cannot introduce legislation himself. It takes a Congressman to do that.

Even though the Congressman introduced the legislation, the legislation was drafted by the Bush administration.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

Fuck you! TAFT started all of this!

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

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.

One good example

Ross Perot got a small fraction of the vote but suddenly everyone cared about the deficit (his pet issue) and we eventually got a balanced budget.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

Actually the problem runs much more deeply than voter apathy. The main reasons why the same old hands keep getting re-elected even when they are clearly selling custom-made laws to their corporate pals are:
- Gerrymandering - Politicians get to draw the lines of their own electoral districts. It's no surprise then that using information about registered voters they draw the lines in such a way as to maximizing their chances to get re-elected. Latelly they even use computer programs to do that.
- Incumbents have a lote more money to defends their seats than other candidates running for that seat. In the US, the candidate with the biggest advertising campaing is often the winner. This actually creates a perverse incentive for politicians to proposed/approve laws that benefict some companies: the more favours they do when holding office, the bigger the pot they will have when the time comes to defend their seat.

The result was that, in 2004, 95% of incumbents managed to keep their seats. It's hard to believe that only 1 in 20 politicians turned out to not be the best choice to represent their constituency ...

Honestly, seen from the point of view of someone who lives in a country where politicians get elected via proportional voting (Holland), the political system in the US looks far from being a real democracy. Not only do different votes have different weights (a person voting Democrat in an electoral district with 70% registered Republicans - or vice-versa - has precisely ZERO chance of changing the outcome of the vote) but the whole registered voters thing provides countless oportunities for social manipulation.

I've also lived in a country that not so long ago (32 year ago, tomorrow) went from dictatorship to democracy (Portugal) and were members of parliment are elected via electoral districts. This resulted in the same 2 parties alternating with each other as winner of the elections. After some decades of this the end result was:
a) Both parties have pretty much the same policies. In front of the cameras politicians criticise the other party, but in practice both parties do the same things.
b) There was an increase in career politicians. The kind that go to politics for money and power, not because they want to improve the country.
c) A "political class" was born (politicians actually use this expression). They stopped being representatives of their constituents and instead were pretty much just representing themselfs. This can clearly be seen in a number of laws designed to protect/benefict politicians (and lawyers).
d) An environment of unaccountability has installed itself. Those politicians currently in power do their best to cover the backs of those that were in power before them (as in, for example, burying legal investigations into corruption) because they know that when they change places the other ones will do the same for them. (thanks to the free press, at the moment there's a bit of a backslash against corruption)
e) A lot less people vote nowadays. Unless you're voting for one of the two parties that are always in government, you know that your vote counts for little. Voter turnout is now often below 50%, while in the years after the revolution it was more than 70%.

Still, at least there's no gerrymandering or voter registration: parliement seats actual change, even if mostly it's between the same two persons and latelly some young and inovative parties have been slowly growing, even if, thanks to electoral districts, their representation in the parliement is actually only HALF of what they would get in a proportional representation system ...

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

In an enormous number of cases, the difference between winning an election and losing it can come down to 1-2% of the voters. If throwing some libertarian policies into their platform gives a republican/democrat candidate the chance to gain that 1-2% who voted libertarian last time, then it can win them the election.

Further...

In an enormous number of cases, the difference between winning an election and losing it can come down to 1-2% of the voters.

This is an interesting observation which both amuses and depresses me. One may wonder how come the elections in the USA normaly end up this way. Also in Europe we are seing the same tendencies (last Italian election Berlusconi vs Prodi [bbc.co.uk]).

Tha answer is that if you give a large group of people two very similar choices, like for example in te Pepsi/Coke chalanges, you end up very close to 50/50 ratios. If you let someone choose between eating a pizza and and a rotten rat - the results are way, way higher. So the "choice" we're given is not a real choice, it's more of a farce and an excuse to call the system a democracy. Thare is a nice saying for this in Swedish: "It's like choosing between Plague and Cholera".

What does this tell us then?
<SARCASM> That two-party politics (USA) is 100% improved one-party politics (USSR)!! </SARCASM>

Cheers... :|

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

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:but,but...

You misunderstand. Your legislative bodies are elected in a series of smaller winner-takes-all elections. In a proportional election, the proportion of the Representatives from one party would correspond to the proportion of votes for that party in the election; so if the vote went 40% Republican, 30% Democrat, 10% Libertarian, 10% Greens, 10% various independents,* distributed equally across the whole country, then you'd get approximately 40% Republicans, 30% Democrats, 10% Libertarians, 10% Greens, 10% various independents elected to the House of Reps. By contrast, that same election under the current First-Past-the-Post winner-takes-all system America has, you'd get 100% Republicans.

I think before this could be applied to America, you'd either need to significantly increase the size of your House of Representatives (so that states like South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming had at least three or four Representatives), or abandon voting by state (which might not actually be any harder to abandon than the first-past-the-post system you have).

* Obviously that you can have independents in a proportional system means I've simplified --- but you can probably read up more on it yourself if you're interested.

The definition of terrorism

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

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...

Knowledge based economy

" 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.

Re:Knowledge based economy

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.

Yes, lots of similiarites. USSR was actually bankrupted in the 70's by Nixon and Carter. Reagan did nor bury USSR, but kept them going by restoring such things as grain trading. What is interesting about this, is that the argument can be made that had we allowed the USSR to fall in early 1981, then it would have been very bloody (perhaps for us). But Reagan's massive giveaway to USSR allowed them to survivie while decaying slowly.

I have wondered if that is what is happening to us. Basically, China and Middle east are propping up Regan and now Bush's outrageous deficts (all of Poppa Bush's and Clinton's efforts was wiped out). Sooner or later, China will have the other nations dependant on them and we will be in the way. At that time, I suspect that all the funding will be pulled and we will tumble as hard as USSR or will elect to start a war.

Anybody else upset.

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.

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.

Now computers will be illegal

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.

These people dont have sense of proportion

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

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

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.

Crime & Punishment

>>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.

Although that sounds funny, I'd like to point out that is exactly what happened during the Dark Ages. The classic example was when stealing bread was punishable by death, rather than the desired effect of deterring crime, the murder rate increased dramatically. If you might die for stealing, you might as well kill the person too and decrease your chance of getting caught.

Punishments have to fit the crime or they serve no valid purpose.

Everything against the benefit of the few

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

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.

Scare Tactics

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.

What causes terrorism

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 ?

Why not just get it over and done with...

...and introdouce this "justice" system [wikipedia.org] and get it over with. Five years, ten years, death penalty... Seems to me that Congress had watch too much TNG and think that'll make the world happy and crime-free.

First age long prison sentences, then "convicted felon", "sex offender"... I'm sure it won't be long before they invent a "pirate registry" too. I read in the recent discussion about kiddie porn about a woman who had been convicted at 10 for "molesting" her younger siblings and had to stay on the sex offenders' registry until she was 37. I call that "fucked for life", why not put a horrified little ten year old girl in the chair while you're at it.

There's always been a good principle in law enforcement that the penalty should fit the crime. In the US, it seems to me that the current idea is "Ok so we got a million criminals and only catch hundred, but we're going to make up for it by making those hundred pay for it." as if that would make things just. That's not justice, that is simply revenge, even if it's incorporated in law. Because you can't reach those you want to reach, you lash out at those few you can. That still doesn't make it just for those that get away nor for those that get caught.

kill the pig! kill the pig! kill the pig!

It's not about Intellectual Property rights. It's not about Patents. It's not about copyrights. It's not about Digital Rights Management.

It's a tax grab.The government has found a way to create taxable value by fiat. The value of currency in modern capitalist states is by fiat. The creation of value by way of IP and Patents and DRM is by legislation, by fiat.

Maggy Thatcher introduced Value Added Tax, in Canada in the 80's the Conservatives introduced the GST. In America the federal government has created taxable value in IP. Remeber the /. article last week about a merger wherein the parties are underinvestigation because they undervalued the IP?

You can argue about civil liberties and the government will join in happy to count the number of angles dancing on the head of a pin.

When I was in grade school during summmer vacation I had to put in 2 weeks working on my grandparents farm. I was told it would build character. It build muscle mass if nothing else. One summer on the farm my uncle decided to butcher a pig. That side of the family is pioneer stock and has farmed the same area for 7 generations. They can make anything they need, including good German sausage. I'd never seen an animal butchered. The pig was tied to corral posts by 3 legs. One rear leg was left free. My uncle slit the pigs jugular and the pig kept kicking his one rear leg, obligingly pumping his blood out. The fuss being kicked up about the laws and civil liberties is the pig's back leg kicking furiously. The tax income is the blood.

Alberto Gonzales is a terrorist

Alberto Gonzales is a terrorist. He, along with congress, the senate, and our president are terrorizing our own people with fear and nonsense.

I suppose they couldnt have said "Intellectual property laws are to protect our children from child pornography and sexual predators", without making folks say "You're a fucking tool Albert"

So logically, its terrorists who are benefiting from copyright infringement.

How many want to bet that The Bush girls have illegal tunes on their ipod, or have used the old napster in their lifetime? How many want to bet that if ever caught, they would not be subject to the same laws that you and i would.

Alberto can go fuck his mother for all i care. This countries just about done.

Vote for a fucking third party candidate dam it!

Trying to tell us something?

I like the way Slashdot carefully arranged "New Congressional Bill Makes DMCA Look Tame" and "Social Networking From Your Cell" next to each other. I had to read it twice before I realised it was a story about phones...

This Law promotes Terrorism

It seems to me that the actions of the RIAA against suspected file sharers are an act of terrorism. Demanding payment under the threat of a lawsuit, just because your underage child downloaded music is simply a shakedown. This law will make it much easier and less costly for the RIAA to extort the single mothers, because they don't have to sue any longer - they just threaten to call the cops. That's a pretty efficient process, and greatly increases the cost-to-income ratio. Enough to afford to buy.... Say.... A congressman.

So how do you stop this? Perhaps all the Slashdot readers in Texas could:

1. Call and ask his staff why he wants to send single moms to jail?

2. Then call your local news station and ask why he wants to send single moms to jail?

3. Then call your local newspaper and ask why he wants to send single moms to jail?

Let's see if there's a Slashdot effect on the local media. Three phone calls is all it takes.

http://lamarsmith.house.gov/ [house.gov]

Call Rep. Smith at [phone]

If you're willing to bitch about it, how about makeing one or more phone calls?

And so it begins...

Here we go. Under current law, Section 1201 of the law generally prohibits distributing or trafficking in any software or hardware that can be used to bypass copy-protection devices. 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. Like debuggers? [gnu.org]

From Wikipedia...

Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini (29 July 1883 - 28 April 1945) led Italy from 1922 to 1943. He created a Fascist state through the use of state terror and propaganda. Using his charisma, total control of the media, and intimidation of political rivals, he disassembled the existing democratic government system.

... sound familiar?

Re:From Wikipedia...

Well, then we are all save. Since Bush clearly lacks charisma...

I know .. hope you are being sarcastic. Yet, here's how safe we really are:

The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism by Dr. Lawrence Britt

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14-defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even o

Skipping ads would be illigal if this were passed

Good ole Philips. They musta snuck this in
From the http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/hr2391 [publicknowledge.org] link, it lists all the stuff thats been shoved into this monstrosity. I just spotted this:

"H.R. 4586 The Family Movie Act
Now, the affirmative right to watch and skip parts of the content that a consumer has legally obtained only exists if certain conditions are met: no commercial or promotional ads may be skipped. ... This sets the functionality of the everyday VCR and TiVo on its head."

So now Philips has it all set, they have that patented technology to prevent ad skipping, and this will make it ILLIGAL to skip ads. Nice.

Re:Fund terrorism?

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:give me example

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.

Re:give me example

Thank you for finding this. Did you also actually read the link you provided?

Citing from your link:

Specific examples:
Northern Ireland:

It is unknown how much of the money generated by these counterfeiting operations goes to terrorist groups and how much is retained as criminal profit.

No examples.
Kosovo

It is suspected that funds generated from IPC benefit both criminal organizations and extremist groups.

No examples.
Chechen separatists. Russian officials = unreliable source.
North African radical fundamentalists terrorists in Europe.

Sympathizers and militants of these groups may engage in a range of criminal activity including IPC.

And whole bunch of similar generic handwaving.
Al-Qaeda.

The investigation into a shipment of fake goods from Dubai to Copenhagen, Denmark, suggests that al-Qaeda may have indirectly obtained financing through counterfeit goods.

Basically every software pirate in any Arabic country by definition is an al-Qaeda supporter. (a) he is a counterfieter = bad guy. (b) he is an Arab (which is bad per se) (c) bad + Arab = al-Qaeda.

Hizbullah. Again, modality of language speaks for itself.

Main source of any "terrorist" activity are sympathisers as, by the way, correctly pointed out in the cited Interpol report. Any activity that involves undetected cash could be used. If you want to suppress funding of any illegal activity you have to go to the main root: shadow economy. Every business should be transparent. Countries should adopt rigorous independent auditing procedures for the business operating from their territory.

I suspect that intellectual property rights violations are very minor portion of the support of illegal activities.

Best way to stop RIAA, MPAA and others is very simple: boycott. Do not buy and do not use what they are selling. It will lead to two results (a) you will be no longer a criminal (b) RIAA, etc will have to change.

Re:Amerika

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

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

I think you are deluding yourself if you think the US article has any teeth.

The EU paragraph doesn't say *how* the IP shall be protected, I'll grant you that, however the corresponding paragraph in the US constitution, while nicer on the outside, has been shown in effect to be just empty words.

Software patents in particular in the US have not been shown to foster progress, and copyrights on the other hand have infinite terms for all intents and purposes, so the ifs and buts serve strictly no purpose. If you start quaking in fear because some sentence leaves the door potentially open to some invented evil, soon your only option is to live in a cavern for fear of your own shadow.

Recall that the EU software patents are still illegal. The "offending" broad sentence in the EU constitution is not a blank check to suddenly making them legal and never would have been. The constitution should be a simple text defining broad principles. No one in their right mind would like IP rights not to be protected. The EU constitution says that they shall be, and leaves it to the democratically elected institutions to work out the details. Potentially these can change with time. In my opinion this is how it should be.

I'll remind you that last year these democratically elected EU institutions worked extremely well to defeat a remarkably well orchestrated attempt by lobby groups to impose US-style software patents in Europe. There were enough alert people to cry foul on all the dirty tricks and ATM the lobbyists are licking their wounds. They'll be back, but for the moment I'm not convinced they will necessarily win.

I'll take debate and a functioning democracy anytime over nicely worded sentences in arbitrary constitutions. Supposedly the old USSR constitution was a model of enlightened principles. Look how it turned out. It didn't prevent the gulag.

 

Re:Amerika

That which is built decays, that which is loved endures.

The United States Constitution is a wonderful document. It struck a careful balance, and made explicit protection against specific fallacies that seem to be cropping up lately ("You have no constitutional right to X..."). The problem is, nobody seems to give a damn. No matter how cleverly worded it was, it won't make a difference if the people don't read it, understand it, and force the government to abide by it.