backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 83 comment(s) - last by MekhongKurt.. on May 19 at 3:02 AM

Adds a new set of armor to United States copyright law

The so-called Hollywood-friendly PRO-IP Act sailed through a House of Representatives vote last Thursday, securing victory with an almost-unanimous 408-11 vote.

Known formally as H.R. 4279, or the “Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008,” the PRO-IP Act makes substantial changes to federal copyright law. Among other things, the bill strengthens criminal and civil penalties for copyright infringements, in addition to providing “safe harbor” for inaccurate copyright registrations, strengthening restitution and forfeiture provisions in a civil infringement case, and requiring courts to protect seized data.

The PRO-IP Act also adds a brand new cabinet-level copyright czar to the White House, whose job will be coordinate the antipiracy efforts of a variety of federal agencies – including his or her ten new intellectual property attachés, which will be added to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Previously, the PRO-IP also contained a provision that allowed copyright owners to seek fines for individual songs on a compilation CD, as opposed to the CD itself – meaning that damages for a 10-song compilation disc would have increased from a maximum of $150,000 to $1.5 million. However, that provision did not make it past a House committee meeting last March.

 “Intellectual property protection is among the key issues that will determine America's competitiveness in the 21st century,” said Rep. John Conyers. “The ability to create, innovate, and generate the best artistic, technological, and knowledge-based intellectual property is the formula for continued growth in the global economy, and is fundamental to the promotion of human progress.”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation called the bill’s creation of a new and “unnecessary” federal bureaucracy “outrageous,” noting that the bill’s new criminal provisions would drag the Justice Department into a war that it has historically and vocally opposed.

Last March, Rep. Rick Boucher announced an attempt to use the PRO-IP Act to strengthen fair use, which weakened significantly with the passage of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998. Unfortunately, it appears that Boucher’s additions – which would have allowed the circumvention of copy protection for the purposes of non-infringing personal use, among other things – never made it into the House’s final draft. For now, his ideas will remain in H.R. 1201, aka the “FAIR USE Act of 2007,” which Boucher himself admits to have shelved.

The PRO-IP Act now awaits passage through the Senate, before reaching the President’s desk.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

America
By mendocinosummit on 5/13/2008 10:11:25 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
“Intellectual property protection is among the key issues that will determine America's competitiveness in the 21st century,”
That is sad that a congressman actually believes that copyright laws made us great. If nothing else laws and attitudes like this will further widen the gap between the rich and middle class and put the government closer to representing the corporations.




RE: America
By mdogs444 on 5/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: America
By mendocinosummit on 5/13/2008 10:24:37 AM , Rating: 2
Whoa! I would like to know more about your background and your ideals. I am guessing big business and big government. I personally am small business, state rights (small government), and even theoretical breakup of the states.


RE: America
By mdogs444 on 5/13/2008 10:28:54 AM , Rating: 2
No, I work for a non-profit hospital, 28 yrs old, financially conservative male. I work hard for what I have, and spend my money wisely. Im a tax paying & law abiding citizen.

I believe that these artists & companies who they are signed with have the rights to the intellectual property that they are licensing to us. If they wanted to stop selling it all together, its their right to do that.

The liberal class warfare rants are getting old, especially in a scenario where its obvious that you are breaking the law by obtaining something that you did not personally pay for. It may not be "stealing", but copyright infringment is illegal and you know it. Sure, Id like to have free stuff, but thats not the case.

Dont cry class warfare and rich getting richer, etc. If you dont like them, dont buy it jack off. If you take it, copy it, etc, then be prepared to pay them. Its not rocket science.


RE: America
By FITCamaro on 5/13/2008 10:35:57 AM , Rating: 5
I agree with you. My below post was just concern for those who do purchase media and being able to move it to their format of choice. If I buy a song from iTunes, I should be able to play it wherever, whenever, and on whatever I want.


RE: America
By mendocinosummit on 5/13/2008 10:36:39 AM , Rating: 5
For one thing I am not liberal. I am 24 year old construction worker with a freaking business degree living in Eastern Nevada. And you just don't get it. Laws like this one are proving were a governments intentions lay. It has nothing to do with stealing their intellectual property. Also, who do you think makes most the money off those CD's? The artist? Even artist are feed up with what you believe in and there has been more and more cases of that popping up. I am just tired of the way the government is being run and your stuck in this anti-pirate rage of yours.


RE: America
By FITCamaro on 5/13/2008 10:39:19 AM , Rating: 2
So what should you do? Steal it? No. If you don't like the situation, don't buy it. Stealing it only furthers their cause. Then the free market will work itself out as the companies comprising the RIAA go out of business from a lack of sales. Buy music from independent artists.


RE: America
By Polynikes on 5/13/2008 1:07:42 PM , Rating: 5
Strengthening copyright laws was absolutely unnecessary. The reason this situation sucks is because it simply shows that lobbyists have too much influence in Washington.

This isn't about piracy, this is about politicians listening to money more than the people.


RE: America
By FITCamaro on 5/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: America
By daInvincibleGama on 5/13/2008 10:33:00 PM , Rating: 5
Copyright, by definition, is a restriction of the free market to create an incentive for those who make content. In a theoretical totally free market, someone else would just copy a work (a movie, lets say) and distribute it for cost of replication (which is about 50 cents a DVD) + some profit.

I'm not saying that copyright shouldn't exist. I'm saying that it has gone too far just because corporations that have a vested interest in it are somehow getting congress to pander to them (corruption?). It's a good time for the pendulum to go the other way (copyright terms < 12362 years, authorized personal replication, no bs DRM protection, etc).


RE: America
By mdogs444 on 5/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: America
By mdogs444 on 5/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: America
By mendocinosummit on 5/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: America
By virtuallyserved on 5/13/2008 12:40:33 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Who gives two flying S***s about what the scenario is between the recording artists & record companies.


I do, and many of those who actually have a deep love and appreciation of music do as well. So do those artisits, which is why there's a substantial number of popular/influential bands/artists looking for alternate ways of distributing their works including torrents, free myspace downloads, and even leaving USB drives with new music in bathrooms of their venues.

Which is why many of those who love Trent Reznors music listened when he told his fans to "steal" his music.

These may not be a personal problem to me as a consumer, but they do pose a problem when the artists I care about don't produce the kind of music they could because of the dominating/monopolistic stance of the recording industry. There have even been one or two cases where the RIAA has tried to collect money from people over works not copyrighted by any member organization.

Check out this link about settlements and how much the artists actually get for infringement cases:
http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-keeps-settlement-mone...

The interesting thing is that artists like Britney Spears, Metallica, and several others were pawned out in the fight against downloading, and yet you don't hear much from them anymore- I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that they figured out it wasn't money they were ever going to see.

You obviously take things from a consumerist standpoint rather than someone who cares deeply about the art. It's fine if you want to take this standpoint. My loyalties and my standpoint is one who cares about the artist and THEIR work.

As for copyright laws perceived effect of stimulating creativity- I don't believe in it. There's a whole industry that works and thrives on the idea free licensing. This proves that copyrighting works does not even guarantee the creators of their fair share, and that there is incentive to contribute irrespective of copyright law.

At best, existing copyright law works to obscure the systems of "ownership" and ensure proprietary domination of markets.


RE: America
By virtuallyserved on 5/13/2008 12:45:03 PM , Rating: 4
Oh, and don't go mistaking my whole argument as another "class" rant. In fact, I never referenced class once.


RE: America
By herrdoktor330 on 5/13/2008 5:40:18 PM , Rating: 2
I advise you all see "Good Copy / Bad Copy". It was a documentary about file sharing, piracy, and the whole topic everyone is on how.

I advise you watch it. The authors put it on The Pirate Bay so you shouldn't have any problem getting it. Or buy it on Amazon. It's definately worth a purchase. (I bought it.)

For those who don't watch it, one of the ideas is that America can pass all the laws they want. The only people making money off someone elses work are living in Russia. Those laws here don't stop what they do over there. In my opinion, that's the real problem that should be focused on. And that's if anything can be done at all.

Plus, Girl Talk is awesome. He's in the documentary for the music he makes, which is done using heavily modified copyrited content mashed up into something amazing.


RE: America
By TheDoc9 on 5/13/2008 6:43:35 PM , Rating: 2
that's an interesting perspective, russia is becoming strong again. Glad I don't use pirate bay.


RE: America
By herrdoktor330 on 5/13/2008 8:06:22 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I'm not trying to single Russia out. But one of the segments of the film focused on a mall in Russia where 90% of the media outlets there were selling pirated goods. Obviously, it's not just Russia doing this. But that's where the efforts should be taken to eliminate that kind of business if they can. It's people that make a living selling copyrighted material that should be prosecuted. P2P people should be left alone.

P2P is never going to go away. "P2P" has existed in many forms for years, from BBSes to Commodore 64 floppy copy parties. When I was a kid, I used to copy cassettes with my stereo. But there wasn't as big a hubbub about how I was "stealing" like there is today. (I'm not admitting to stealing today... just stating a point about yesteryear: the '90s)

The only way to reverse P2P as we know it today is to do something radical and over the top, like impose limits on consumer hard drives.


RE: America
By robinthakur on 5/13/2008 11:05:59 AM , Rating: 2
So when you say you're financially conservative, you actually mean you're a miser? You remind me of Frank Grimes from the Simpsons in many ways. Oh and you also forgot to state you were a white hetrosexual for the full on neo-con effect. I'd also like to state that I'm not from the US, i'm from the UK but would still class myself as a liberal conservative.

Content and intellectual property rights are all well and good, but this must be balanced with fair usage as well. DRM does impact me as a paying user (e.g. number of times you can activate Vista, iTunes etc) and adds to the inconvenience of using something I paid for. The bigger problem for the industry and which you so ironically point out is that people AREN'T buying into heavily DRM'ed solutions compared to distribution methods in times gone by with realistic freedom of use.

The mismatch is between what is deemed as a fair and reasonable use by one person (the content holder) is not seen that way by the consumer necessarily.E.g. that age old copyright quandry regarding are you supposed to buy a cassette copy of your album to use in the car as well as the CD to use at home or just tape it, since you own a copy. The copyright holder would obviously prefer that you buy two copies.

The same question still exists, only the technology has changed. Hopefully you have a safe, unexcitingly conservative life working in your non-profit hospital and spending your money wisely. Stay away from those power cables...


RE: America
By mdogs444 on 5/13/2008 11:16:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
you also forgot to state you were a white hetrosexual for the full on neo-con effect.

So in other words, since I'm not a black homosexual, im automatically a war mongering neo-con? Wow, how observant of you.


RE: America
By mindless1 on 5/13/2008 3:09:09 PM , Rating: 1
Not a a war mongering neo-con, rather a participant in a conversation about which you have undisclosed special interests. Your motivations are not what you have claimed and you would not feel as strongly as you do about something as trivial as some kids listening to music they copied if this were not the case.


RE: America
By sgw2n5 on 5/13/2008 3:41:18 PM , Rating: 5
For shiats and giggles, just go back in the archives and read any or all of mdoggs comments (on any subject). I've got to hand it to him, the man can inject his own political bias into just about any discussion. Them gosh dern' dirty LIBRULS is ruinin' my U S of Merica'!!!!!

Amusing, really.

It's of no use to argue with some types. Just go home, listen to some Rush Limbaugh and be sure to catch FOX news before you retire for the night.


RE: America
By Ringold on 5/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: America
By mindless1 on 5/14/2008 5:10:12 AM , Rating: 2
That's what shills do, try to remain consistent while always focusing on a primary agenda when the chance arises.

Consider guerrilla marketers, do they only post on their chosen goal-related posts? No, they also try to establish a context and repertoire.

If he has what seems an aligning opinion on other topics we can as easily argue that makes him predisposed to being accepting of terms required to adhere to a biased agenda, to put things mildly.


RE: America
By Lightning III on 5/13/2008 11:32:35 AM , Rating: 5
Really according to what I just read I'm a pirate because I have a non HDCP compliant HD Tv (aka pre hdmi)therefore if I want my upscaling DVD player to upscale for a better picture I have to use ANYDVD to remove the protection I don't disrtribute or torrent. But accordng to this I'm an outlaw.

Perhaps I don't want to spend another 2 grand on a big screen when what I got works just fine.


RE: America
By Shawn5961 on 5/13/2008 11:48:34 AM , Rating: 2
I think I'm a pirate as well for recording last Thursday's episode of Lost with my DVR because I had to work and was going to miss it.


RE: America
By mdogs444 on 5/13/2008 11:53:23 AM , Rating: 2
Actually thats false. You are paying a monthly service charge to your cable provider for the DVR service. Just as people pay service charges for TIVO.

You would be committing copyright infringement though if you used the DVR to make a copy on a disc, computer, etc without written consent.


RE: America
By FITCamaro on 5/13/2008 12:23:21 PM , Rating: 2
TV capture cards are not illegal. You can have a PC based DVR that do not require monthly service charges. ;)

And which give you technically a "pirated" copy of the show. My view on television is that if its broadcast, I have the right to capture it. I can't sell it or distribute it, but I can keep it for my own personal use to watch.


RE: America
By PrezWeezy on 5/13/2008 2:30:31 PM , Rating: 2
Yes but it begs the question of why would they want to do that? If you distribute it, then isn't it simply giving more publicity to the show? Doesn't that cause people to be more interested in it and want to watch it? If more people watch, that creates a bigger demand for the network to charge more for commercials, and just makes them more money.

I agree that posting on YouTube before the episode has broadcast is wrong, but I started watching Eureeka because my friend had season one downloaded and I copied them and got hooked. After that I was watching every episode live for season two. I just don't understand why companies are trying to stop free advertising. If it were me I'd want people to be distributing it after it had been aired.


RE: America
By CU on 5/13/2008 12:31:30 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't or didn't TIVO at one time provide software to copy recorded shows to your computer? Also how is making a copy copyright infringement. I though that was part of fair use so you could have a backup copy.

Either legal or not. I say if I pay for a channel or the channel is free, I should be able to get and store any program that has played on it since I have been paying for it whether by using a VCR to record it or downloading it through a P2P app. I already paid for it so who cares how I get it as long as it is not a better quality than I paid for. I will even go so far as to say if I pay for Netflix then I don't have a problem with downloading any movie they have since I am paying Netflix for it anyway. Of course I would delete the movie when I canceled my Netflix account.


RE: America
By virtuallyserved on 5/13/2008 12:51:25 PM , Rating: 2
So anyone who has used a VCR to record a show, or a homebuilt Media Center/HTPC is a pirate because we didn't get written consent to record the content.

I don't pay service charges to any service for my PVR, and I get OTA signals. I also use services like Hulu which stream music down to my PC.

Hell, even Blizzard wants to interpret its users as violating Copyright law by making "copies" of the game in active memory:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/blizzard-wow-warc...


RE: America
By mdogs444 on 5/13/2008 2:02:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So anyone who has used a VCR to record a show, or a homebuilt Media Center/HTPC is a pirate because we didn't get written consent to record the content.

According to the current laws, yes. You are paying your cable provider to broadcast the show. If you want to tape it - whether it be for personal backup or for the intent to distribute, you must get prior written consent from the copyright holder.

Haven't you ever seen or listened to the beginning of a baseball or football game on tv? Its the first thing they show.


RE: America
By Spuke on 5/13/2008 2:49:02 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like you're the type of guy that would uphold slavery if the law stated it was legal. I bet you have never exceed the speed limit either. Are you married? Is your wife the same race as yourself? If she isn't, do you know that in some states it's still illegal to do so?


RE: America
By Alexstarfire on 5/13/2008 3:26:33 PM , Rating: 1
Yea, they still have some very strange laws still on the book. Of course, I don't think nearly any of those laws would still be held up in court, but I find it odd that they even became laws in the first place. How could a majority actually have that kind of view.

Anyways, I feel that I have the same views as the majority of people on here. I believe that if I'm paying for TV service that I should be able to have a copy of any show I want. I can already watch most shows whenever, so what's the difference between it being on the TV and being on my DVR or computer? Commercials. I feel that many companies don't like us being able to record shows not because they feel it's stealing, but because they are losing money because we skip the commercials when we record a show. Not sure what else to say about that.

Regardless, this is why I feel that downloading TV series via torrents is perfectly legal. As long as I'm not getting all the extras that the DVD version has I don't see how it is any different from it being on my DVR, which seems to be perfectly legal.

Also, if the congressmen actually feel that this is one of the most important issues we have.... then we are all fucked. Sure, it's important if you're greedy, but it's not that important overall. There are far more things that are more important than copyright infringement. To me, this isn't even on the top 10 list. Probably wouldn't even make the top 50 to be honest. You can't sit there and tell me that this doesn't help those that are already rich. Sure, it might help a FEW people who actually need protecting, but we all know that's not what this is about. I can't say that mendocinosummit is completely right, but I feel he's a lot closer than mdogs444 is. That doesn't mean it's all right to steal IP, but I'll be damned if it's ACTUALLY hurting the companies, like the RIAA and MPAA. Probably others as well, but those are the two big ones.


RE: America
By virtuallyserved on 5/13/2008 3:16:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Haven't you ever seen or listened to the beginning of a baseball or football game on tv? Its the first thing they show.


Truth is I don't watch American sports, and if I do, I'm usually coming in during the middle of the game.

But by that same token, ANYONE who has ever watched a game through means of television is in violation, as all TV's have temporary caching/storage ability- they have to in order to display images and audio. As I mentioned before, Blizzard wants to interpret running a legal copy of their games in memory as a violation of copyright. Media companies have shown every indication that they would like to interpret copyright laws in the same way.

I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous interpretation of current copyright law, and practically criminalizes anyone who's turned on a TV, especially a modern one.

So mdogs444, I'm sorry to tell you this, but you are a criminal as you've violated copyright laws. Which either makes you either a hypocrite for supporting these positions or a liar since you have claimed to be a law abiding citizen. Unless you have, all your life, received written permission to turn on your TV to watch any programs, have always made sure any venue (sports bars) you attended has received express permission (abetting is just as illegal as the infringement itself) to view the content in a public setting, and made sure that any viewing you have had in your own home has never included others as this violates distribution and exhibition clauses. Unless you claim to have never seen a TV, watched video online, etc.

I'm not making fun of you like others on this thread. I'm simply logically interpreting the law as media companies would like it to be interpreted- which happens to be the position you are supporting.


RE: America
By EricMartello on 5/13/2008 5:24:35 PM , Rating: 3
There used to be these things called VCRs which would let you record anything off TV...if you were keen enough to learn how to program the clock, you could even have rudimentary TV-like functionality...recording on a schedule.

People pay a fee to use a DVR because they are clueless "me too" morons who don't realize they're being charged for something that was free for many years before it. You can make a PC-based DVR that records TV shows without a monthly fee. In fact, you seem to completely forget about "fair use".

The point is that copyright laws are no longer serving the best interests of all parties involved - they only serve the interests of the ones who issue and lobby for such laws, completely alienating the consumer.

Copyright laws should be strictly limited to people who PROFIT from unauthorized reproduction, period. If you want to call downloading from TPB or similar sites "stealing", I'd like you to show what was taken, who lost something and provide a verifiable dollar amount (or anything TANGIBLE) to qualify said "theft". It is not possible to do that, because nothing was stolen and nothing was gained or lost.

On the other hand, you have chinese people SELLING the same software that was downloaded from TPB or other sites...aka pirates/bootleggers. In this case you can easily demonstrate something that was taken, something that was lost and a tangible dollar amount.

Making current copyright laws even more loose than they already are is not going to help anyone other than those with the most money - and guess who that is.


RE: America
By Lightning III on 5/13/2008 11:32:36 AM , Rating: 2
Really according to what I just read I'm a pirate because I have a non HDCP compliant HD Tv (aka pre hdmi)therefore if I want my upscaling DVD player to upscale for a better picture I have to use ANYDVD to remove the protection I don't disrtribute or torrent. But accordng to this I'm an outlaw.

Perhaps I don't want to spend another 2 grand on a big screen when what I got works just fine.


RE: America
By geeg on 5/13/2008 12:34:57 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you needed attention and posted something stupid.

Answer this: Rest of the world copies/shares (maybe except for you). Who has the technological leading edge you think? U.S.?? No, its not anymore. China and India has more engineers and scientists than U.S. by many folds. Hence, the outsourcing in the last 10 years. And when you don't have technology, you are weak.

Copyright act only secures the businesses, who already have purchased the rights from the content creators.


RE: America
By Ringold on 5/14/2008 12:20:01 AM , Rating: 2
Go forth, visit India. Note how the majority live almost without any trace whatsoever of modern technology, including hundreds of millions without in-door lavatories, despite what knowledge they hold in their head.

Then return here and tell me with a straight face India has "the technological leading edge."

# of Engineers =! technological advantage

Indeed, # of Engineers = interesting statistic only, utterly, completely useless without capital to apply them to.


RE: America
By EricMartello on 5/13/2008 1:56:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
28 yrs old, financially conservative male. I work hard for what I have, and spend my money wisely. Im a tax paying & law abiding citizen.

It may not be "stealing", but copyright infringment is illegal and you know it.


That's a good sheep! BAAAAAAH.

While you're feeling all smug in your "I'm a good little boy" take on life, you seem to forget that the government can easily declare something you have taken for granted to be "illegal", effectively making you an outlaw.

quote:
Dont cry class warfare and rich getting richer, etc. If you dont like them, dont buy it jack off. If you take it, copy it, etc, then be prepared to pay them. Its not rocket science.


Where can I find customers like you? You want to invest in a water ice chain start up? I got some prime locations in Siberia and the South Pole. Oh yeah, it's illegal for you to decline my offer. Pay me now or suffer the consequences of "Willful Disagreement".

Back into the toolbox...cmon...


RE: America
By MGSsancho on 5/13/2008 2:50:23 PM , Rating: 2
after all these lawsuits and millions of dollars collected, artist still haven't gotten a penny from it. I agree the system isn't perfect but extending IP to last 99 years, awesome.


RE: America
By mikeblas on 5/13/2008 5:22:35 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to know about your ideals and background, too. Have you ever created any viable intellectual property, or are you only a consumer?


RE: America
By rhuarch on 5/13/2008 11:09:16 AM , Rating: 5
You are missing the point. The law is unjust and protects a monopoly that shouldn't exist. The RIAA and MPAA are price fixing cartels, protected by the congress that has been bought and payed for. According to the philosophy of civil disobedience, when a law is unjust, citizens who understand that it is unjust have a moral obligation to disobey that law.

Copyright laws as they currently exist are unjust, they may have made sense when the printing press and the phonograph were the pinnacles of information technology, but in today's infoscape the time has come for free dissemination of information. If America expects to remain great or even relevant in the modern world we need free access to as much information as possible.

This bill isn't just about music and movies it's about the accessibility of information. Certainly music and movies are part of it, and I can even concede that artists have a right to be compensated for the efforts they put into their creations. But with the advent of digital media, the copyright laws as they exist and further as they are strengthened by this bill require such draconian measures to enforce that they effectively hamper our civil liberties. An example; can you honestly expect a middle class family to pay $150,000 in fines for making a compilation CD from songs they ripped off of CDs they already own? Under current copyright law that is illegal. Fair use says that it isn't, but if you had to circumvent copy protections in order to rip the CDs then fair use doesn't apply to you.

Ultimately that is the point. The MPAA and RIAA have effectively nullified fair use by forcing laws through their lap-dog congress that obstruct it at every turn. And so I repeat, those who understand that a law is unjust have a moral responsibility to disobey that law. History has shown that this philosophy works. It worked for John Lock, for Gandhi, for Rosa Parks, for Martin Luther King Jr, and it can work for us too.

You may believe that because the MPAA and RIAA are the most visible players in this show that music and movies are all that are at stake, but these laws apply to all copyrighted content of any kind. What this is really about is free access to information. The most dangerous setback to a government attempting to limit freedoms is an informed populace. Consider that the next time you hear about another new bill that "strengthens" copyright laws.


RE: America
By FingerMeElmo87 on 5/13/2008 11:17:36 AM , Rating: 2
+5 kudos


RE: America
By Carter642 on 5/13/2008 12:27:24 PM , Rating: 2
Cheers to that!

One thing that the government and RIAA and MPAA seem to be forgetting is that on-shore "pirating" is by and large just downloading and copying for personal use. Off-shore is where people are actually making a serious profit off of bootlegging operations.

I know it's tough to do anything in countries that basically don't care about IP law but the Mafias should at least make more noise about the folks who are making a profit reselling their IP rather than personal use infringements.


RE: America
By herrdoktor330 on 5/13/2008 8:48:22 PM , Rating: 3
Well, I'll give you this: If it worked for John Sinclair, it will work. All we need to do is hold a "Free <file sharing martyr>" concert in the city where that person got arrested. The only problem with that is finding the artists who will hold a free concert to free someone like that? Maybe Trent Reznor will take some time from his busy schedule to help a project like that. Maybe Radiohead? (That would be one hell of a show...)

I'm not being snide or anything. While I agree in civil disobedience, I'm afraid that the "vibe" that made those things possible years ago has died. I think people in America today are much happier to obey without question and suffer the consequences that come from not being active in the political process, making the world notice your opinion, or "step out of line" to make a statement. Not that I'm pleased to say that. I'm saddened actually. You can flame me for this, but I think kids these days are worried more about "The Hills", Tilla Tequila, and how their pictures look on myspace than care about how the world is turning out.

Kinda reminds me of that movie "Idiocracy"...

... but bless you for saying what your saying though. I do agree.


RE: America
By FITCamaro on 5/13/2008 10:33:04 AM , Rating: 3
Well copyright law in itself is a good thing. It's important that a companies efforts be protected. But this bill really won't add anything to protections from one company trying to impeded on another's patents and copyrights.

This is solely a piece of anti-piracy legislation pushed by the media companies so they can try to sue more people. And will possibly further restrict legitimate consumers rights with the media they have purchased.


RE: America
By FingerMeElmo87 on 5/13/2008 11:08:48 AM , Rating: 2
RIAA - did you just rip that CD to your computer?

Consumer - uhhh, yeah.

RIAA - that'll be $750 per track, thank you :-)


RE: America
By AntiM on 5/13/2008 11:04:19 AM , Rating: 2
If this law is passed, which I'm sure it will be, it will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop or slow down piracy one iota. I don't support piracy, I wish people would stop doing it, but they won't, and this law isn't going to stop them. It is clearly a case of the government pandering to the large(with large bank accounts) media companies. Just think, ... congress has done nothing to address most of the important issues facing this country. I could give numerous examples, but then this would turn into a book instead of a post. This legislation sailed through much faster than any legislation that would have actually been beneficial to the American people.
Lets say people finally get fed up and stop buying music all together. The media companies will stop making money and start crying about how piracy is making them lose money, when in fact, it's their own stupidity and greed that is making them lose money.


RE: America
By FingerMeElmo87 on 5/13/2008 11:12:45 AM , Rating: 2
at the end of the day, the congressman is all about fattening there pockets. they're just businessmen. they most likely got some type of "funding" and thats why this was passed so fast and thats why most congressmen are snakes


RE: America
By Reclaimer77 on 5/13/2008 12:09:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If this law is passed, which I'm sure it will be,


Actually Bush has a pretty good track record when it comes to vetoing useless legislation handed down by Nancy Pill - er I mean " congress ". So I'm fairly confident this won't pass.

*crosses fingers*


RE: America
By MaulBall789 on 5/13/2008 1:15:57 PM , Rating: 2
Umm... a 408-11 vote is about as bipartisan as it gets which strongly suggests that Bush would sign it into law. Can't imagine the earmarks that will slip through with this one.


RE: America
By stilltrying on 5/13/2008 1:43:50 PM , Rating: 2
HAHAHA! This will definitely pass with Bush as it probably means a whole new government department. This law is more about getting the government into its citizens home even easier than it currently is. This is just an excuse to have more invasion of citizens privacy in their home and making money while doing it. Granted I dont promote piracy an ounce but to create a gov task force to combat it is just more fabianism.


RE: America
By AntiM on 5/13/2008 2:42:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
HAHAHA! This will definitely pass with Bush as it probably means a whole new government department.


Yes, that's another thing, do we need another incompetent, money grubbing bureaucratic cabinet? Don't we have more important things that need to be addressed? My tax dollars are being spent to support a failing, short sighted industy with the formation of a new cabinet? huh?
I guess when people start wearing loafers, there will be a ShoeString cabinet formed to make sure people keep buying shoestrings, in order to save the shoestring industry.

It has been suggested that Bush probably won't pass this legislation. But Bush has also shown a penchant for the total disregard of American's civil liberties so this is right down his alley. I say this one is up in the air.


RE: America
By Reclaimer77 on 5/14/2008 12:53:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But Bush has also shown a penchant for the total disregard of American's civil liberties so this is right down his alley.


Comments like this on here are really getting old. Can you name me one civil liberty that you have lost because of Bush ?

Stop being a media slave. Your probably talking about the Patriot Act, and how it ruins civil liberties because you heard it on the news. Fact is, its been audited and investigated several times. Not only has there never been a violation of anyones rights because of it, there has never been a single documented complaint about someones rights being violated. Its a good piece of legislation.

Opinions are one thing. But if your going to state Bush has totally disregarded your civil liberties, then I expect you to back that statement up.


RE: America
By Alexstarfire on 5/13/2008 3:36:17 PM , Rating: 2
Even if he did veto it it probably wouldn't matter. If the Senate votes about like the House did, then it would just override the veto. If he knew it was going to override his veto he probably wouldn't do anything about it; though I believe he should veto it anyways to show that he doesn't support it.


RE: America
By Chadder007 on 5/13/2008 12:38:56 PM , Rating: 2
All I have to say is Conyers is a damned fool.


RE: America
By TETRONG on 5/13/2008 2:19:23 PM , Rating: 1
Recently,
I asked several of my friends from Japan and China if they would like to see Iron Man, or Speed Racer with me.

They declined because they had already seen it "awhile ago".

This was on the night of the premiere.

This law simply concentrates the blame and losses on the shoulders of Americans.

The RIAA, and MPAA in an effort to prop up their antiquated business model have seized control of our legislative branch.


I'm tired of...
By bpurkapi on 5/13/2008 12:08:31 PM , Rating: 5
I'm tired of folks who say something is illegal, therefore if you break the law you deserve some kind of punishment. How about actually talking about the details of the law. Is the law just? Does its punishment match the crime? These are all very important details that seem to be outright ignored. I can't believe there are people who don't break laws simply because it would be illegal. Better reasons to not break laws are because it would hurt the community, an individual, or set a bad precedent. Laws are not simple little things, neither should your justification for abiding them or breaking them.




RE: I'm tired of...
By Ananke on 5/13/2008 12:26:13 PM , Rating: 3
Strange country is this...Supposed to be the most advanced technologically, yet is falling more and more behind China and India. The truth, entertainment studios are trying /and somehow successfully/ to make us brainless consuming sheeps, DRM-ing everything, limiting hardware...Historically, other nations with not so user obstructive laws will eventually benefit and spread tech knowlidge among their citizens. I don't say that America fell already, but this is a clear way to go the way of the dinosaurs :)
Too sad for the teenagers. I grew over this crap, using open source software and building my machines myself. And I listen to independent clubhouse and techno music - no RIAA, no DRM. Hopefully, there will be more people like me 20 years down the road....or there will be more Asians like me 20 years later :). Then we all be able to live happily exchanging agricultural goods for high-tech toys made in teh New Asian World.
I am European, to some extend this has happened to Europe centuries ago, history repeats...


RE: I'm tired of...
By Spuke on 5/13/2008 12:52:23 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think music or movies will be the downfall of America. But I do think that the music/movie industries see their impending doom coming and are grasping at straws. With music and movie sales continuing their drop, it will only be a matter of time before the large studios start to implode. I am not concerned with these new laws in the least.


RE: I'm tired of...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/13/2008 12:56:45 PM , Rating: 1
Was this a joke ??

quote:
I am European ...


Ahhh, never mind.


Sad, dangerous precedent
By jay401 on 5/13/2008 10:03:22 AM , Rating: 4
Ars has been covering this for several days now:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080508-hous...

The discussion is also pretty interesting:

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&a...




RE: Sad, dangerous precedent
By Chris Peredun on 5/13/2008 11:06:13 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Originally posted by Feshy at the ArsTechnica forums:

"The bill would also enable law enforcement agents to seize property from copyright infringers."

"[...]nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

How in the holy hell does "you might be sharing music" qualify as due process of law?


A dangerous precident indeed. I'd love to say that this bill should be struck down as unconstitutional, but that sadly didn't stop any of the other freedom-infringing ones from becoming law.


RE: Sad, dangerous precedent
By Ringold on 5/14/2008 12:31:38 AM , Rating: 2
Park in an illegal zone, and they'll seize your car. Don't pay the ticket and the towing bill, it's gone forever. Also, commit a crime, such a child porn, and if they suspect an individual, they'll take their 'property' (read:computers) in order to look for evidence.

If it's as bad as people think constitutionally, then it's up to some hippy with deep pockets (of which there are a vast number) to take it to the Supreme Court. Dislike doesn't mean unconstitutional.


By PAPutzback on 5/13/2008 10:28:44 AM , Rating: 2
But I can transfer them to a MP3 player. This is a conspiracy that is headed by MS and Apple to get us to by their players.




By mdogs444 on 5/13/2008 10:30:48 AM , Rating: 2
Its not a conspiracy, its a business model.


By FITCamaro on 5/13/2008 10:36:57 AM , Rating: 2
Yes everything is a conspiracy. The green men are real. And the tomatoes are going to eat you.


By mdogs444 on 5/13/2008 10:48:55 AM , Rating: 3
"I do not believe that pink Unicorns exist, but I cannot scientifically say without a doubt that they do not"

Thats what I view as reasoning for most conspiracy theories like the one above.


Time and time again
By viperpa on 5/13/2008 4:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
Time and time again people are told if you want effect the record or movie industry, you don't buy there products. People are insisting on buying the products and then complaining about . People watch t.v. but complain about the commercials. The only way the record or movie industry will change if people don't buy or watch any of there products.

It's there products, they can do what they want with it. As a customer, you have the power to say your not going to put up with it.

If bands choose to sign up with a record company that adds DRM to there music, then that's there business. It doesn't mean you have to buy it. I hear people say the musicians get the short end of the the stick. If the musicians were so worried about it, you would hear complaining from them which you don't. The musicians still sign contracts and get there hefty sign on bonus.




RE: Time and time again
By Bender 123 on 5/13/2008 4:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
Wow!!! I dont mind commercials at all, but dont try to double take on me is my only issue. Why should I pay 15 bucks for a CD, .99 for an Mp3, another .99 for a ringtone of the same song, etc...
I bought the darn song, I just want to use it in all my gizmos, I am not trying to steal it, just use it in a convenient manner.

As for movies and TV, I have no gripe with commercials either. Just that back in the old days they had reruns for episodes you missed. I am tired of getting charged for "free" content at every turn. I like having the streaming ability of Hulu, ABC.com, etc...but I am really tired of needing to pay everytime i want to transfer it to my iPod to watch on my lunch or needing to buy a DVD. Just include commercials in the downloads and let the users decide what is worth the sponsors money. Its an old business solution to a new business problem.


RE: Time and time again
By viperpa on 5/13/2008 5:08:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wow!!! I dont mind commercials at all, but dont try to double take on me is my only issue. Why should I pay 15 bucks for a CD, .99 for an Mp3, another .99 for a ringtone of the same song, etc...
I bought the darn song, I just want to use it in all my gizmos, I am not trying to steal it, just use it in a convenient manner.


I agree with you that it is ridiculous that you have to buy multiple songs to play in different products or buy multiple DVD's. The only point I am making is if you don't like what the music companies are doing, then don't buy the music or go to Emusic where they don't have those type of restrictions. Then maybe the music companies like Sony, Universal, and EMI will change there tune.

Once this bill gets enacted which I am hoping it don't , the music companies can't complain they are losing money to piracy cause there should be hardly any piracy going on. Then they will just need to complain about the people being cheapos for not buying the music.


RE: Time and time again
By viperpa on 5/13/2008 5:18:08 PM , Rating: 2
I would also like to add that once and if this bill gets enacted, there won't be such a thing called fair use. Everything that is created and made available on the net would need to be copyrighted. This includes music, videos, photos, blogs, help material etc.....

Even if you wanted to give your OWN works away for free, you wouldn't be able to due to the fact your works need to be copyrighted. Any copyrighted works you would need to get paid for it. This so it conforms to the law and there is no stipulation.


stronger copywrite laws are not what we need
By tastyratz on 5/13/2008 11:16:20 AM , Rating: 2
The **aa has a failing business model. They are not adapting to the change to the digital age. Instead of adapting their sales they are cashing in on lawsuits and clamping down on use.

Regardless of the morality of downloading music and movies, burning a copy of the cd you just purchased, or ripping mp3's to your player (all of which illegal to the **aa) There still needs to be justice in the legal system.
Each of these laws just puts them that much closer to complete invasion of privacy and ownership of your soul if you ever slip up.

1.5 million dollars for a fV&(*ng mix cd? to think they even considered that 1 second is preposterous. look at the big picture!

The penalties are already WAY out of control and disproportionate.
people work 30 years on a mortgage to pay off the penalty for copying 1 cd.

Tell me why these laws are ANY MORE STIFF than if you were to just walk out of wal mart with a cd right now.

Because digital is more convenient? again - big picture.

let me ask you all this
Will you wait until transferring your cd to your ipod hits your harder than a rape or murder charge?




RE: stronger copywrite laws are not what we need
By TETRONG on 5/13/2008 2:26:02 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm...

Once this new Czar -- wait a second Czar?

Since when do we have Czars in this country?

So, when we go through an airport they are going to look through our laptops and Ipods looking for copied music, and we can be fined how much?

Anyone want to start a new country?


By Ringold on 5/14/2008 12:48:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyone want to start a new country?


Well.. There is that Libertarian 'Free State Project' :

http://freestateproject.org/

Actually, don't know for certain it's Libertarian Party backed or not, but they're at least in bed together.

I don't think it'll ever get anywhere, though. New Hampshire is cold, and while Florida is far, far from perfect, it doesn't have a state income tax and its not cold.


Our country is run by criminals
By LyCannon on 5/13/2008 11:21:29 AM , Rating: 2
This bill is yet another example of how big business can influence corrupt government officials to pass laws that protect their outrageous profits and remove more rights from the consumer.




RE: Our country is run by criminals
By mdogs444 on 5/13/08, Rating: 0
By Shawn5961 on 5/13/2008 12:01:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And not even that - this is MUSIC for god sake. Is your life that intermingled with music that you feel the need to cry conspiracy because you arent allowed to copy your Fergie cd? Seriously man, there are so many more important things in the world than music & video game copyright.


So by your argument, music isn't a big deal? If we're on those lines, we might as well get rid of literature as well.

In my entirely biased opinion, being a musician myself, music is one of the most powerful forces in the world. Any sound can be classified as music, so yes, unless someone lives a life in a padded, soundproofed room, does not talk, and does not think, their life IS that intermingled with music.

You say that buying a music CD licenses me to listen to it. Can I sing along? Can I hum it? Can I even think about the song when I'm bored at work? How should I describe it to someone if I think they should buy it?

Also, can other people listen to my CD? Or should I charge them the outrageous $20 I spent on it, and then mail it to the RIAA, MPAA, or whomever (and I'm sure they would make me pay for postage as well).

I agree, music is an intellectual property, but the CD's themselves are not. That's like saying that by me purchasing a pair of shoes, they're not really mine, but they belong to the designer. While the style belongs to the designer, the shoes belong to ME, not the person who made them.


RE: Our country is run by criminals
By tmouse on 5/13/2008 2:51:03 PM , Rating: 2
You really are a lap dog. While I do not feel that a person should have a copy of any song "just because" this “law” is totally ridiculous. These organizations ultimately want you to pay every time you listen to a song. If you buy a song you should be able to listen to it on any device you own at any time, so if you want to listen to it in your car, or while jogging or in the comfort of your home you should be able to. You should not give copies away or get music you did not pay for. If you need to copy the music for your own use you should be able to. The Supreme Court even stated that individuals had the right to record broadcasts for personal later viewing. If you do not think they will abuse this law you sir are a fool. Direct Tv once sent out over 250000 extortion letters to anyone who bought a card programmer whether or not they even had any Direct Tv equipment. At one time they had over 5% of ALL federal cases tied up with this, this cost the US taxpayer millions. It was so bad the court system had to appoint only 2 judges per district to hear them. Even then they illegally tied cases together to save the filing fees (most of these were thrown out and forced to be re-filed). In the end less than 100 cases went to court, others they ran up the bills and dropped the case before going to trial. They tried to get the FBI involved and said how the people would be imprisoned (even after they knew the justice department said they simply did not have the man power to go after these types of cases and just wanted to go after large duplicators. This “law” will just cripple these law enforcement agencies, choke up our legal system all for the benefits of Hollywood profits.


Cabinet Level Position?
By VahnTitrio on 5/13/2008 12:23:42 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The PRO-IP Act also adds a brand new cabinet-level copyright czar to the White House, whose job will be coordinate the antipiracy efforts of a variety of federal agencies


Seriously? That high up? Unless the funding for this is coming straight out of the RIAA/MPAA checkbooks this is completely unnecessary. Example:

Secretary of the Department of Congress: Sir, we have a crisis in the financial sector that needs to be addressed. Stocks are faltering and the economy is waning. People are losing jobs...

President: No time for that now, we need an update on the case against little Suzy.

Copyright Czar: Well sir, it appears little Suzy has in fact downloaded the new Miley Cyrus single via Limewire. Court hearings have been scheduled, and we have a whole team examining her computer looking for other illegal downloads. I will update you should further charges be pending.

President: Excellent, I'll schedule a press conference alerting the public immediately.




Freedom falls
By Bender 123 on 5/13/2008 2:45:58 PM , Rating: 2
I feel like I need to post something about the RIAA and how how sick and tired I am with them and what this law will do to us, but there is a noise at the window I need to check on it...be right back...

(various crashing noises and screams of pain)

To continue...The RIAA is fantastic and the government is the best. There is no concern with this law. Go back to your work and let the representatives do their work. All hail the overlords. All hail the RIAA, friend to all children and keeper of the great future.




New copyright law
By MekhongKurt on 5/19/2008 3:02:10 AM , Rating: 2
I haven't read the new U.S. law, but in some ways I do like enhanced protection for creators of original content.

I have a basically nonprofit website about Bangkok. (I'm American, but have lived in Asia many years, the last 14 in Bangkok).

A friend and I started the website years ago. There happened to be a free tourist magazine in a bar we went, and he started thumbing through it. He ran across a story I had written and the photo he had taken for the piece both reproduced with no acknowledgment of our work.

As we were hoping to widen our audience and maybe someday make a little money, it was pleasing to see our stuff in the magazine, but not without even just a line of text giving the URL.

But we didn't get all greedy. All we did was to visit the senior editor -- the actual owner lived in the Philippines -- and said he could use our stuff, for nearly free, the "nearly" part meaning to give us a one- or two-line ad somewhere in each edition.

In the event, the magazine was in dire financial straits and went bankrupt a few weeks later, so our efforts didn't do us any good.

But I don't think our request was out of order or in any way unfair, with which the editor -- but not the owner -- agreed.

While that particular magazine went under, the owner was trying to make money through selling advertising space -- including ads on the page facing our work, the ads tailored to our particular content.

I know other webmasters here who sometimes ask to use something I've written, and they invariably do give credit and a link to either the item's URL or to my homepage. (My friend has since moved on to other endeavors.) And they let me use their stuff in similar fashion.

I realize I'm speaking from the point of view of the creator of original material, not from the hard-ass perspective of the RIAA and similar groups.

Intellectual property rights are very poorly enforced here, especially anything that can be put on a CD, DVD, etc. It can actually be difficult to find legitimate copies unless you know which high-end store to try.

There's even a specialized shopping center here largely given over to computer outlets and shops selling various disks -- and the vast majority of the disks are copies made on-site while the customer waits. (I don't know how they're ever going to end this, or even make just a dent in it.)

Just my two cents' worth . . .




"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments












botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki