New Congressional Bill Makes DMCA Look Tame 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.
Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (Score:5, Informative)
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) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (Score:5, Insightful)
The execs are the only ones in a no-lose position. Or at least that was the case before computers and the internet. It's time for a whole new paradigm. But to get there, consumers and artists are going to have to work together... hence the sick beauty of the divide-and-conquer approach. The longer artists and audiences are kept from reaching mutually satisfactory solutions, the longer the media corp execs can line their pockets.
Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (Score:4, Insightful)
You make the same mistake everyone makes - assuming the leadership give a shit about Christian morals. Religiously, this country does everything it can to bend over backwards for everyone except Christians.
The reason that government seems to support such Christian thought patterns is two-fold:
Don't make the mistake of thinking that leadership themselves care about a Christian utopia. Just those who control money (and thus control politicians) do.
Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (Score:5, Insightful)
Go ahead and say it: The past few years we have been dealing with a Totalitarian Regime that aspires to be a dictatorship - and they are winning, mostly (imo) because no one will say it out loud. The fact it's a dictatorship that calls itself "Christian" (instead of "Islamist") doesn't make it any less a dictatorship, and doesn't make it less Wrong.
The "Kingdom of Heaven" ("Kingdom of God"/whatever) may be paradise, but it's still monarchy - not a democracy, or even a Republic - so what do your Christian ideals tell you about Democracy - that it's Evil, or that it's good enough until Jesus gets back?
Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (Score:4, Interesting)
- Type "Taxachusetts" into Google.
- Click "I'm Feeling Lucky."
- Learn that, as of 2004, Massachusetts has lower taxes than almost 70% of the country.
- Realize that anyone seriously using the term Taxachusetts either has a political axe to grind, or is somewhat misinformed.
(Profit.)Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (Score:5, Insightful)
It's because America is lazy now. Change requires work, and America is just lazy. It's easier to bitch over coffee how Bush wiretaps then it is to actually do something - even as simple as writing your representatives.
People, as a whole, are sheep. It's the very thing that shows the likes of the Simpsons and Family Guy show - mob mentality rules, people are sheep. The majority usually complains about indescressions for a week, then accept them.
Take the RIAA for instance. There was a huge web backlash when they first filed their 1.7 billion john doe lawsuits. Since then, /. is about the only place that continues to hold hate for the RIAA - everyone else just buys their music, no matter how many 80 year old grandmothers they bankrupt.
Same for public survellance. You're videotaped hundreds of times a day. Initially it was uncomfortable, but now people just ignore and accept it.
To use another Simpsons analogy - take the time Apu was on Homer's lawn looking in the front window and Homer wanted him to leave:
Homer: Will you get off my lawn!?
Apu: Why don't you make me!
Homer: Why!?! Aw... I give up...
Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (Score:5, Insightful)
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) (Score:5, Insightful)
Child Porn is the root password to the US Constitution.
Terrorism is the alternate password.
Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (Score:4, Funny)
string annoyingPeople=terrorist; (Score:4, Insightful)
<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:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (Score:5, Insightful)
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) (Score:5, Insightful)
So when is oil becoming illegal?
Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd always thought the money chain for Al Quaeda funding was reasonably clear, with most coming from donations to "charitable" organisations such as the Muwafaq ("Blessed Relief") Foundation. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4963025/ [msn.com]
That was pretty much how the IRA got their money too, so it's not like this is a novel concept. Why not introduce laws banning anonymous donations? It'd be more efefctive than this crap.
Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (Score:4, Insightful)
A: Programming, owning a computer without Windows, and thinking about Making something instead of Buying it.
Nuff said.
Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (Score:4, Funny)
The scariest part is that it works.
personal anecdote:
I'm getting a mattress delivered to my condo today (in Miami). Our management has a strict policy about reserving the elevator several days in advance, and will refuse any delivery not scheduled. So I was talking to the front desk security guard about it yesterday, and the exchange went something like this.
Me: ...I know you guys are ridiculously strict about your service elevator.
Him: Yeah, but don't you prefer it this way? I mean, we can keep track of anything coming in and out of the condos.
Me: Not really. Frankly, how is it any of your business what I'm bringing in and out of my condo?
Him: Well, it's for security, you know? Someone could easily bring in a bomb or something. If it happened to the World Trade Center, it could happen here. We've got families and... (all I remember is a faint buzzing noise from here on out)
Me: (incredulous stare with mouth agape)
... So this guy just told me that we have to schedule our service elevators to protect against terrorism. And he compared some random high-rise condo in Miami to the World Trade Center. Whether that's his personal view, or that of the management, I don't really know or care. I was absolutely dumbfounded that this would be the reason they cite.
And apparently it's okay to bring bombs into my condo building, as long as I schedule it beforehand.
Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (Score:3, Insightful)
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 pisse
Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (Score:5, Insightful)
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) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (Score:5, Informative)
"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) (Score:5, Insightful)
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) (Score:4, Insightful)
For the benefit of readers outside the US, we should perhaps note that in American political speech, "frankly" is a code word meaning that what follows is an intentional lie. The phrase "quite frankly" means it's a damned lie.
It's sorta the Washington equivalent of "wink, wink; nudge, nudge" for you Monty Python fans.
Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name) (Score:5, Insightful)
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) (Score:5, Funny)
Re:From TFA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Copyright Infringement != Terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bought and sold so cheaply (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bought and sold so cheaply (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:One good example (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bought and sold so cheaply (Score:5, Insightful)
- 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 (Score:5, Informative)
Nowadays that's called "campaign contribution", but once upon a time I remember that being called "bribery".
Re:Bought and sold so cheaply (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Which leads to the obvious conclusion... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bought and sold so cheaply (Score:4, Insightful)
As I mentioned in another comment, I've done some very extensive data mining of the Congressional voting records over the past 15 years. The statement that the parties are practically the same is completely ludicrous. However, what is even more important than your party affiliation is who your friends in Congress are. One of the most interesting revelations of my research was that congresspeople form very well-defined cliques and voting is extremely consistent within these cliques.
Yeah, yeah, we all knew that, but it's good to see it borne out by some real statistics.
Re:Bought and sold so cheaply (Score:4, Interesting)
instant runoff
IRV doesn't help that much. It allows third parties to obtain more of a voice, which is good, but it doesn't really allow them to obtain power. As the strength of the third party grows to a point where it threatens to win an election, IRV still creates a situation where voters have to vote strategically for the major party they consider the lesser evil, rather than the third party they really prefer. Otherwise, they risk the third party candidate knocking out the more ideologically similar major party candidate, but without acquiring enough votes to defeat the other major party candidate.
Approval voting is better than IRV, and the Condorcet voting systems are even better. For legislative bodies, proportional representation is also an option, though it has downsides as well -- I prefer to vote for people, not parties.
Re:Bought and sold so cheaply (Score:5, Insightful)
Further... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:but,but... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Congress will not reform itself (Score:4, Insightful)
Congress makes the laws. Congress is made up of corrupt politicians who get their money from lobbyists (many from the drug-infested, bribery machine that Gingrich & DeLay & Ney et al. tuned on K Street -- the bribery machine was there before them, BTW -- they only tuned it to try to make the bribes all go to Republicans only). Congress is made up of corrupt career politicians who want to get reelected.
It serves their interest to punish newcomers, to encourage no turnover. So they will never want to abandon the current system of seniority that punishes newcomers and keeps power to long-term career seat holders.
It serves their interest to lock out any third party, so they will never want to change the "winner take all" non-representative electoral college.
That is to say, you cannot reform the corrupt Congress by hoping that Congress reforms it.
Amerika (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
Sure, the constitution's dead (for now, I'm sure once the French domestic situ
Re:Amerika (Score:3)
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 protect
Re:Amerika (Score:5, Insightful)
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]:
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Amerika (Score:3, Insightful)
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 :-(
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Since 9/11 (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Fund terrorism? (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, wait... [theregister.co.uk]
Re:Fund terrorism? (Score:5, Funny)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just one name... (Score:3, Insightful)
give me example (Score:4, Insightful)
Does anybody remember a case that even remotely supports that assertion? Any free-swappping IRA members?
Re:give me example (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Citing from your link:
Specific examples:
Northern Ireland:
No examples.
Kosovo
No examples.
Chechen separatists. Russian officials = unreliable source.
North African radical fundamentalists terrorists in Europe.
And whole bunch of similar generic handwaving.
Al-Qaeda.
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.
Terrorism! (Score:4, Funny)
Misinformed articles fund terrorism!
More benefits (Score:3, Insightful)
it also helps against child pornography.
Oh, and against overweight.
Roel
Knowledge based economy (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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. (Score:5, Interesting)
organisation (SIAA) that supports this bill. I know
I will now be recommending any other linux vendor for
enterprise support.
Re:Anybody else upset. (Score:5, Interesting)
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. (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.siia.net/membership/board.asp [siia.net]
Now computers will be illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
These people dont have sense of proportion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:These people dont have sense of proportion (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Crime & Punishment (Score:5, Insightful)
An example of this principle that is often misunderstood in modern times is the Old Testament rule of "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." This phrase is associated with brutality and revenge, but actually it is a limit on the severity of punishments that for its time (and for most times and places since then, unfortunately) was quite merciful. It explicitly rules out the example you give of executing someone for stealing bread, or even for stealing something much more expensive. By this standard, the penalty for "stealing" copyrighted material should be comparable to the value of the material stolen. The law right now is so far beyond that it's scary.
And there are the other objectors who say "Yes, but if the penalty was that minor then it wouldn't be enough of a disincentive to copyright violators" -- but the primary purpose of just laws is not to serve as a disincentive to bad behavior (let alone that more severe punishments doesn't even correlate directly with less crime, as in your example). Even if, by instituting an instant death sentence for copyright violation, we were able to lower copyright violation to 1% of its current levels, this would not be acceptable, because death is not a proportionate punishment for that crime. Similarly, 10 years in prison, though a good deal more lenient than death, is grossly disproportionate to the offense that will yield it.
Does such a punishment deter crime? Not as much as you'd think. But who cares? The point is that it is an immoral punishment. The ends do not justify the means. People should be punished because of the wrongs that they committed, not as an example to scare other people out of misbehaving. People who break laws are still people, not some "criminal" class that becomes subhuman and is therefore unworthy of justice. And "justice" doesn't just mean "bad things happen to people who break laws." It should mean that those who break laws will receive a punishment appropriate to their specific actions, and it is poor sympathy for fellow human beings to ignore what happens to them because "they broke the law, so they had it coming."
Alright, rant over for now... suffice to say... I agree with you ;)
Everything against the benefit of the few (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess that at this point there is not much pouting is going to do to help!
How to control the populace (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:kill the pig! kill the pig! kill the pig! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:kill the pig! kill the pig! kill the pig! (Score:4, Informative)
Errr... nope. VAT came in in 1973, long before Her Maggiesty.
Alberto Gonzales is a terrorist (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
It's easier than shaking down Indian casinos (Score:4, Interesting)
The GOP is dedicated to grabbing every non-member of the 1% by the ankles and seeing what falls out of their pockets.
The upside? At least this isn't as bad as the shit they did on behalf of Jack Abramoff.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_200 5_08_07.php#006266/ [talkingpointsmemo.com]
Wait a second! Yes it is!
The recording industry is largely run by the mafia anyhow. So... It's just the same as the Indian gaming scandal.
I'm no big fan of either political party, but the Republicans are bad news.
Corruption-wise, this is the ugliest America has been since the end of the 19th Century.
This Law promotes Terrorism (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (202) 225-4236
If you're willing to bitch about it, how about makeing one or more phone calls?
And so it begins... (Score:5, Insightful)
From Wikipedia... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:From Wikipedia... (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:From Wikipedia... (Score:5, Informative)
He has a Ph.D. in political science, making him, yes, both a doctor and a political scientist.
minus profit == fund criminals/terrorists??? (Score:4, Insightful)
[-] profit = [+] fund criminals/terrorists ???
What mathmatically challenged Zeus's anus hair thought of that idiotic formula?
Shit like this should be on Al-jazeera.
*note to self: Hack voting machines and elect Nader and show those politicians what real terror looks like.
I'm confident... (Score:4, Funny)
Skipping ads would be illigal if this were passed (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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.
Ten years of jail time for copyright infringement? (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) "The 24-page bill is a far-reaching medley of different proposals cobbled together. One would, for instance, create a new federal crime of just trying to commit copyright infringement. Such willful attempts at piracy, even if they fail, could be punished by up to 10 years in prison."
(2) "Jessica Litman, who teaches copyright law at Wayne State University, views the DMCA expansion as more than just a minor change. "If Sony had decided to stand on its rights and either McAfee or Norton Antivirus had tried to remove the rootkit from my hard drive, we'd all be violating this expanded definition," Litman said."
(3) "copyright holders can impound "records documenting the manufacture, sale or receipt of items involved in" infringements"
(4) "boosts criminal penalties for copyright infringement originally created by the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 from five years to 10 years (and 10 years to 20 years for subsequent offenses). The NET Act targets noncommercial piracy including posting copyrighted photos, videos or news articles on a Web site if the value exceeds $1,000"
Well ... this starts to look like the laws in good old England last century. Where paupers could be sentenced to things like banishment to the Colonies (or an extensive jail time) for something like stealing an apple.
ad (1) It does seem a bit over the top punishment-wise.
ad (2) Just what we need! Congress has surely got its ear to the ground on this one.
ad (3) Makes sense ... just think of all those weblogs that ISP's are so loath to give up. Grabbing the weblogs and suing people wholesale on basis of it may yet become an important source of revenue for copyright holders.
ad (4) What are the going rates for manslaughter? And for aggravated assault? And for murder? Repeated copyright violation in excess of 1000$ is apparently the moral equivalent of murder and is rated higher than manslaughter or aggravated assault. Interesting point of view. First the War on Drugs and now this. We're going from strength to strength.
Watch the good old US of A wage War on Crime. Copyright violations are so bad for society that they merit firm jail sentences. Bad news perhaps for teenagers who use p2p software, but the good news is that this might be just what's needed to secure our lead in people jailed per 1000 (see http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries -by-highest-prison-population-rates.html [mapsofworld.com]) which is now only threatened by Russia and a few banana republics. We lead the world inthis area (except perhaps for countries that don't release statistics such as North Korea).
Just a thought ... those jails we have are awfully expensive per inmate. Wouldn't it be an idea to give offenders a choice: jail time or a tour of service in Afghanistan or Iraq? To err ... atone for their misdemeanour? Just a thought.
Welcome to the War on Drugs (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm just waiting (Score:4, Informative)
It is too new to show up on the THOMAS (Library of Congress) [loc.gov] website. Oh, wait. It hasn't been introduced yet.
H.R. 2391 [loc.gov] only comes up as the Safe Communities and Safe Schools Mercury Reduction Act of 2005 [loc.gov].
That said if TFA [publicknowledge.org] is accurate then it will be something I oppose and will write to my state Rep about.
What the heck is it about Texans? (Score:4, Informative)
G. W. Bush, Tom DeLay, Lamar, Cornin, Gonzales... not to mention the folks from Enron ('member, Ken Lay is connected politically to these clowns) ... the list goes on. It's gotten so you have a better than even chance if you say "Lemme guess, he's a Texan, right?" whenever you hear of some lame-brained idea coming out of a politician.
Call Lamar Smith's Office Now! (Number Enclosed) (Score:5, Informative)
I just read the bill and was disgusted by what I saw. Like most of us here at Slashdot, I work in the IT field and have had way too many brushes with Homeland Security demanding data they have no right to get just because they want it. Our civil liberties are getting gobbled up and we, as Americans, are letting them do it.
So, everyone on here, PLEASE call Joseph Gibson, Lamar Smith's Chief of Staff at (202) 225-4236. Call him TODAY. He told me that NO ONE had bothered to call them regarding this bill. That I was the FIRST person who had actually talked to him about how heinous some of the provisions are in this bill. Make sure you actually read the Bill before you call so you can make your intelligent objections. Otherwise, we all come across like a bunch of people who just want to rip off IP from other people. And make sure you tell them that you are vehemently opposed to this bill and will raise public awareness about the loss of our Fair Use rights.
I spent a lot of time talking to the Mr. Gibson about the Sony Betamax ruling with regard to Fair Use rights and how Business would have missed out on the multi-billion dollar video industry if they hadn't lost that case. Also, about how creating legislation to keep a monopolistic cartel (RIAA & MPAA) in a position of power is ANTI-free market. (Businesses in a free market have to adapt to survive, I certainly know that I have to play by those rules. . . .)
Other things we can do include:
Also, please Mod this reply up to make sure that people GET THE MESSAGE. Thanks!!!
News headlines will read.... (Score:5, Insightful)
"When the police asked a man caught stealing DVDs and CDs from the store, he said the risk was a bargain compared to downloading the same content online. Now he'll only get a fine, a few days in jail, and be on his merry way. If he'd used a computer to do the same thing he'd be financially ruined, spend up to a decade or so in 'pound me in the ass prison', and be marked for life as a felon. To him the choice was simple."
My point is punishments need to fit the crime. This legislation proposes punishments that are grossly excessive, as is the case for many punishments related to computer crimes that were brought forth by the content industries--I'm looking at you RIAA and MPAA. When the punishment of doing physical harm and ACTUAL theft is less risky of making a mere copy of electronic data, the world is in a sorry state of affairs, which is a symptom of the greed and corruption ruining this country.
So, this is how TCP will become mandatory (Score:5, Insightful)
Authorities
That computer is a hacking tool. Hacking is illegal.
Hacker
No, you're confusing "hacking" with criminal acts. "Hacking" just means that I'm using my computer in a manner not consistent with its original design to solve a problem in an imaginative manner.
Authorities
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Look, sir--some laws are just unenforcable, and we know that everybody's been breaking them for a long time. Hell, I used to, too. That's over now, but we're not locking people up for it yet. The people in the TCPA did the best they could to protect their rights and preserve as much of yours as they could tolerate. After that, legislatures simply let the technology define the rights.
The law has changed: What you're doing falls outside the scope of the TCP System. You could have bought an approved computer. The courts understand that there's really only one reason you didn't. know there's only one reason you didn't. We don't have to prove you did anything else illegal--the presence of the unlicensed computer is a crime, now.
You have a good job. A decent house that you're going to own in twelve more years, good credit, the respect of your peers, and peace of mind. You eat dinner with your kids and your wife. And what's your misery? Your kids are a couple of smart-mouth little shitheads? Great. Think about it. Don't be stupid. That's your worst problem? It's just a computer, fer chrissake. Just pay the fine; it's not going to break you.
Nothing else in the house I should know about, is there? Sign here. It says this computer you're giving me is the only illegal item in your possession. I'll sign as witness. See, it says "under penalty of perjury", and you signed it. I trust you. Look, sir, I'm trying to help you out here. You seem to be a decent guy and folks like you really don't belong in jail. I'll be in the neighborhood following up in about a week--you can ask me any questions then. County dump's public property, by the way. Can't say what came from who or when in there. Yeah--next Saturday. We'll be doing this side of the street in the afternoon.
One more thing--After I leave, I go to Best Buy or Wal-Mart and get yourself a legal computer, register it, and start using it. Use the number on the bottom of the form.
No, seriously. Go buy a decent computer. You're going to need one, and it's not going to put your Visa over the limit. Look, your hard drives get yanked & scanned into the database. Whatever you were using your computer for before---if don't start doing it on a licensed computer, the court assumes--Yeah, you got it.
Terrified hacker
Sorry. Here's the computer. Where do I sign? Can I pay the fine with Visa? No, I don't mind a 3% fee; that's what--only another fifteen bucks?
Three Years Later...
The fully engaged citizen act: Federally mandated taxpayer subsidized minimum internet access for everyone. Partially or fully subsidized (check your tax return to see if you qualify) computers for everyone. They're not very powerful, but they're enough to vote, file your taxes, and pay your fines.
And we really, really expect you to take advantage of this program. Why wouldn't you? It's basically free, and the only way you can vote, renew your drivers' license, apply for an apartment, sign up for electric service. Give all that up? Why? No, seriously, why? Sure, you can opt out of the program, but we'd really like to know why. I'll wait until you get it filled out. Can we go inside an sit down?
No, you misunderstand the word. Privacy is what's violated when the neighbors peek at your daughter in the shower.
A pattern of secretive behaviour, on the other hand, is evidence of a crime. No, of course, not you. You've done nothing wrong at all.
No, you don't qualify for the subsidy. But, hey, lemme see what I can do. Just sign up today, and I'll see you get the latest model--it'll
Re:I have an revolutionary sollution (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever burn a mix CD for your SO?
PIRATE!
Ever record something off of internet radio or FM?
PIRATE!
Ever time shift a TV program and bypass the commercials?
PIRATE!
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
It's easy to slap on a label and criminalize some basically innocuous behavior to the benefit of those that already have all the benefits (you did know that corporations enjoy more rights and protections than you, Mr. John Q. Public, right?).