Bush Signs Draconian Anti-Piracy Law

[Aussie Rebel]

Interesting......

Over in California, champagne corks are popping. In the offices of the MPAA and RIAA, lawyers turned lobbyists are dancing jigs. In houses all around the US however, people are left dumbfounded by the passage of a bill based on appeasement to big money, at a time when the country is in economic turmoil.

The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008, or PRO IP Act, finally gathered the signature of President George W. Bush, and made it into law. The act, as we previously reported, has been criticized by both the US Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Commerce (DOC), but gathered support in the wake of economic troubles that have hit the US.

Title I of the bill, which allowed the DOJ to pursue civil copyright cases, was dropped by the senate when they passed the bill, with Richard Esguerra, spokesman for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, noting that he was relieved that attorneys won?t become ?pro bono personal lawyers for the content industry.? However, the objections of the DOC - that the creation of a ?Copyright Czar? would be an unconstitutional violation of Separation of Powers - went unopposed. Included in the bill is the issue of ?civil forfeiture?, where articles can be seized and held if it is thought they are to be used in committing a crime, or infringement.

The unanimous passage of this bill is worrying, mainly because it shows a triumph for lobbying over facts, and how common sense can be easily overruled with enough money and influence. Claims that support the bill include spurious job creations from this bill, to money saved in the economy. ?Counterfeiting and piracy costs the United States nearly $250 billion annually,? says the US Chamber of Commerce in a Reuters article, while others have more effectively broken down the figures and pointed out how they don?t make sense.

Yet, in a country on the brink of economic meltdown, a bill that is claimed to help the economy by creating jobs (and boost the economy by reducing those jobs and revenue claimed to be lost) seems like a good political move, regardless of how absurd and baseless the figures are. Dan Glickman of the MPAA certainly wants to play the economic card, saying: ?At this critical time for our economy, it?s important to send a message that the jobs created and maintained by the protection of intellectual property is a national priority.?

The person filling this Copyright Czar role will, presumably, be in a similar position to that of the Drugs Czar, and will listen mainly to lobbyists and ?safe? peer pressure. Just as in the case of narcotics, symptoms will be dealt with, and not causes. Targeting causes means targeting contributors, while targeting symptoms just means targeting voters, and there are millions of them. It also remains to be seen who will be given the role of Copyright Czar, but don?t be surprised if it?s a member of the MPAA/RIAA, although some might start pushing for Prof. Lessig, as happened when California?s 12th District lost its congressman. However, Prof. Lessig told TorrentFreak that he?s ?not going to be an enforcement czar, and nor would I be wanted for that.?

Perhaps the worst aspect of the bill, though, is the extension of forfeiture. Already used extensively in drugs cases, it is often inappropriately applied. If drugs are found in someone?s home, and along with that comes a claim from a 3rd party (even if they were caught breaking into the home) that they were dealing, the home owner can have their house taken away, along with anything of value in it.

Although some may feel that forfeiture is an appropriate response to serious large scale drug dealing, those same draconian measures can now apply to copyright infringement cases. It can cause more expense and difficulty in defending cases when defendants have to prove in a separate court action, that the materials seized were not used for the actions claimed. Wikipedia indicates that 3 years, and $10,000 is the typical cost of fighting such cases. Public Knowledge opposes these forfeiture measures, with spokesman Art Brodsky saying: ?Let?s suppose that there?s one computer in the house, and one person uses it for downloads and one for homework. The whole computer goes.?

The increase in powers and fines exacerbates an already bad situation. With the forfeiture laws, in theory they may be able to have equipment belonging to ISP?s seized (while the DMCA gives safe harbor for prosecution under infringement, it may not allow a defense under forfeiture) and that could be used as a club to beat ISPs into the role of copyright police ? one that ISPs worldwide have been loathed to accept.

With the election just weeks away, perhaps our American readers might be interested in tracking who voted for the bill, as all representatives are up for election. Senate voting was not recorded.

http://torrentfreak.com/president-bu...ar-law-081014/

[WWC]

wow...interesting....

[TheDoc]

Good? and Bad?

Does that mean the Gov is going to be kicking doors down for stolen/downloaded porn? Wow!

[GigoloShawn]

I fully support charging pirates; I however am not happy at this making the RIAA richer. Those pricks and the MPAA could pay off our damn debit with 4 shitty Tom Cruise movies and the next 3 cookie cutter big name sampled loop CDs.

[CrkMStanz]

Good

I hope they use an iron fist to swing that banhammer against all content theives

and extend it to banning IPs and ISPs from overseas that do it, but are 'untouchable' leagally.

to all content theives i say --->

(unless this is just another 'don't believe everything you read on the interwebz' thing - then you can disregard this rant)

[dav3]

initiate the great firewall of usa in 3..2...

[TheDoc]

Problem is, your kid downloads a song/movie, or watch it, even a single song (it has happened) - and with this law, the DoJ is kicking your door down, yanking your Computers out and treating your entire family, house, money, every thing like a drug dealer.

Based off the theories of an Organization that isn't part of the Gov.

[GrouchyAdmin]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Based off the theories of an Organization that isn't part of the Gov.

Would you rather be fighting the gov't or the RIAA? The government has less money to spend these days.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by GrouchyAdmin

Would you rather be fighting the gov't or the RIAA? The government has less money to spend these days.

The RIAA and MPAA have only made more mistakes than one can count, illegal lawsuits, the wrong people, tons of LEGAL downloads brought up as illegal. They are #1 shit stains in my book, above Bush.

You do not want these scum bags leading up anything.

[GrouchyAdmin]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

You do not want these scum bags leading up anything.

My statement was regarding that "Then it would have government red tape and regulations", so the fuckwads would be castrated sooner.. or am I just eternally hopeful?

[- Jesus Christ -]

This is not ONLY about copyright law and piracy.

At what point do we band together and proclaim the current system an aberration to the constitution and stop recognizing its authority?

Will the iPhone, credit, and fast food placate the human spirit forever?

Will there be a generation willing to die for freedom again?

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/23/23214/3438
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_B..._Extension_Act

[GigoloShawn]

Originally Posted by - Jesus Christ -

This is not ONLY about copyright law and piracy.

Getting poorly camcorder'd movies and software you have no use for the day they hit the theater/store are worth dying for? I'd say they're worth about $10-$50, for the majority.

[- Jesus Christ -]

Originally Posted by GigoloShawn

Getting poorly camcorder'd movies and software you have no use for the day they hit the theater/store are worth dying for? I'd say they're worth about $10-$50, for the majority.

Way to completely misunderstand my point and fail to spend even a few mins checking out the links I provided...

gogo average gfy poster.

[GrouchyAdmin]

Originally Posted by GigoloShawn

Getting poorly camcorder'd movies and software you have no use for the day they hit the theater/store are worth dying for? I'd say they're worth about $10-$50, for the majority.

I doubt that was his point, but you probably know this.

Originally Posted by - Jesus Christ -

Way to completely misunderstand my point and fail to spend even a few mins checking out the links I provided...

gogo average gfy poster.

I'd say you're the one overreacting.

Beating your chest and crying for blood or death, when I highly doubt you can get out of your chair without the help of the fire department?

gogo average gfy poster.

[GigoloShawn]

Originally Posted by GrouchyAdmin

I doubt that was his point, but you probably know this.

Yes, I was poking fun at his statement of dying for perceived lost liberties.

Why did you have to go and make him a martyr? You just gave him what he wanted.

Bad joke, I know. I know.

[- Jesus Christ -]

Taking 10 mins to post my opinion on a message board is far from over reacting. (wasting my time on this reply might be, but I'm done after this) The only reason I mention death is because it seems to be one of the few ways out of tyrannical systems. Governments do not give rights back without a fight. At this point I'd settle for HALF of the population of my country having a basic understanding of the founding principals. It would be a start.

Maybe I should not have posted this in a copyright thread since I know content rights are something we need to support. If you think this law is going to help us you don't understand it. Its going to help the people who bought its passage; Nothing more.

No, I don't need the fire department to leave my chair I'm one of those healthy nerds.

Night.

[GrouchyAdmin]

Originally Posted by - Jesus Christ -

Taking 10 mins to post my opinion on a message board is far from over reacting.

Yeah, posting that you should be willing to (have others) die for something you feel slighted on is hardly overreacting. If you admit that your wording was stupid, well, good for you, you look like a dickhead. I've made a career out of looking like a dickhead - and being one hell of a technical guy.

I have more exception to the Patriot Act than anything else done in the last 20 years, but this is hardly something worthy of revolt. People who shout "Take up arms against the government" for every small slight just make themselves look stupid.

Originally Posted by GigoloShawn

Why did you have to go and make him a martyr? You just gave him what he wanted.

Bad joke, I know. I know.

You should be shot for that joke.

[- Jesus Christ -]

Originally Posted by GrouchyAdmin

Yeah, posting that you should be willing to (have others) die for something you feel slighted on is hardly overreacting.

Still missing the concept that my original post not directed solely at this law?

The links I posted were to Jefferson's writings and a different law... so yes... clearly the only conclusion Is that I was saying I want people to die over this specific law... and not an exaggeration to illustrate the apparent lack of passion for the true defense of the original principles that made the country great.

You were intriguing enough to keep me watching this thread when I should be in bed... but it seems to be nothing but a flame war at this point. I'm sure you'll come back with something about me being fat or how much smarter you are than me, but I'm gonna give my all at not reopening this thread. Don't let it stop you though. You're clealrly the winner of the internet and I can't change that, so flame on.

Gaaaaaa.... MUST RESIST.... FORUM TROLLING AND SLEEEEEEEEEEEEEP.

[wootpr0n]

Originally Posted by Aussie Rebel

Interesting......



http://torrentfreak.com/president-bu...ar-law-081014/

This new law is a fucking disaster.

The part of the bill that was ommitted was the Department of Justice Civil Enforcement. It would give the DOJ the authority to sue people who infringe on copyrights on behalf of the copyright owner.

In the case of the MPAA/RIAA judicial abuse, it will let the DOJ do their dirty work, using YOUR TAX DOLLARS.

And this takes out the most important part of copyright. Most cases are motivated by the laws of economics. You don't usually sue someone unless they are causing you damages; it usually doesn't make sense to sue somebody who made a photocopy of your book, but it makes sense to sue somebody selling counterfeit DVDs on eBay. It costs money to file a lawsuit and pay lawyers.

Now the government can sue anybody they want, and they could care less about how much it costs. The copyright holders don't pay a penny. It all comes out of YOUR TAX DOLLARS.

Do you really think that the government gives a shit about pirated porn? Do you? The DOJ gets to decide who it wants to go after. I guaran-damn-tee you they won't be going after pornbb.org or any of the tube sites or average people downloading torrents with rips of your entire sites.

Every week, the MPAA comes out with a new statistic about how much money they're losing. Currently, movie piracy costs the economy $900 billion per year. 90% is the result of file sharing. And 92% is the result of counterfeit DVDs in China. And for every DVDRip that you download, you will cause 200,000 people to lose their jobs. And anybody who buys a counterfeit DVD on the street is clearly a terrorist and a drug dealer.

And whatever happens, Dan Glickman will blame it on piracy:
9/11 - Terrorists watched pirated DVDs and were upset with American filth
Illegal Immigration - Mexicans coming across the border to buy pirated DVDs
Economic Meltdown - Piracy cost jobs
War on Drugs - Piracy funds drug lords
Teenage Pregnancy - Too many pirated copies of Juno

Why doesn't he just shut the fuck up already? MPAA sales were up this summer over the summer of 2007, in the middle of a credit crunch.

There is one press release on the MPAA site that says 60% of movies don't even make a profit. It's tough for the movie industry to operate. And then the second press release comes out a week later and talks about how the MPAA members produced record profits this year.

With movies/music, most of the people who are pirating stuff were never going to buy the content in the first place, either because they are cheap, or because the movies suck. Movie studios are run fat angry by idiots. Even a monkey can predict which movies are going to make a profit and which ones are going to fail.

With porn, more people would be buying it if it weren't so freely available, because there is no substitute to porn.

[GrouchyAdmin]

Originally Posted by - Jesus Christ -

The links I posted were to Jefferson's writings and a different law... so yes... clearly the only conclusion Is that I was saying I want people to die over this specific law... and not an exaggeration to illustrate the apparent lack of passion for the true defense of the original principles that made the country great.

So, now you're admitting to acting like an idiot and using the self defense mechanism of trolling to not admit you were acting like an idiot? That seems self-defeating to me. Quoting a guy who had sex with his slaves is also a great way to win points. (See what I did there, that's called a straw man argument - it's used ad nauseum in "debates" such as those - where you compared a link to something that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject as a way to deter to try to get people to blindly agree with your point.)

Originally Posted by - Jesus Christ -

I'm sure you'll come back with something about me being fat or how much smarter you are than me, but I'm gonna give my all at not reopening this thread.

If you don't want to fight about it I understand; you didn't really make much of a point.. but hey, if you want to default, that's cool.. you don't even need to defend yourself.

Originally Posted by wootpr0n

In the case of the MPAA/RIAA judicial abuse, it will let the DOJ do their dirty work, using YOUR TAX DOLLARS.

Am I the only one who thinks the US Government would give up suing a grandma whose kid installed bearshare before the MPAA/RIAA did? They never do. Obviously if it was put up to being judged by their peers, and the eviiiil bad gubbermint was suing a 90 year old lady, I think it'd be dismissed without a second thought.

[wootpr0n]

Originally Posted by GrouchyAdmin

Am I the only one who thinks the US Government would give up suing a grandma whose kid installed bearshare before the MPAA/RIAA did? They never do. Obviously if it was put up to being judged by their peers, and the eviiiil bad gubbermint was suing a 90 year old lady, I think it'd be dismissed without a second thought.

The RIAA has consumer opinion's to worry about and it hasn't stopped them.

This government cares even less. Just look at all the crap that it has done in the last 8 years.

And public opinion will matter even less to an unelected prosecutor who answers to an unelected boss. They'll be suing unborn children without thinking twice.

[DWB]

They will not be bothering with pirated porn. You can count on that. Unless its used as a reason to raid someones house / office.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by wootpr0n

This new law is a fucking disaster.

The part of the bill that was ommitted was the Department of Justice Civil Enforcement. It would give the DOJ the authority to sue people who infringe on copyrights on behalf of the copyright owner.

In the case of the MPAA/RIAA judicial abuse, it will let the DOJ do their dirty work, using YOUR TAX DOLLARS.

And that part never made into this bill. So why are you bitching about it?

[dav3]

The increase in powers and fines exacerbates an already bad situation. With the forfeiture laws, in theory they may be able to have equipment belonging to ISP?s seized (while the DMCA gives safe harbor for prosecution under infringement, it may not allow a defense under forfeiture) and that could be used as a club to beat ISPs into the role of copyright police ? one that ISPs worldwide have been loathed to accept.

Get ready for higher connection bills. If the cable/telephone companies find any reason to raise rates, they will jump on it.

[Phoenix]

so you rant and rave about how much you hate torrents warez etc etc

then you call a law to stop them draconian?

or am i confusing you with cunningstunt?

[V_RocKs]

I am John McCain and I approve this message.

[GetSCORECash]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Does that mean the Gov is going to be kicking doors down for stolen/downloaded porn? Wow!

In your dreams!

[halfpint]

Is there finally some good news to cheer up the music industry? The people behind a major piece of research - the Digital Music Survey 2008 - would certainly have us think so.

Their press release is headlined: "Light in the tunnel for the music industry: revenue opportunities are increasing, illegal downloading is down." The truth is, it's still a mixed picture. There are signs that threats of action against illegal downloaders may be having an effect, but there's also evidence that the music-buying (or sharing) public is still pretty underwhelmed by the legal digital offerings.

The figures showing a fall in illegal downloading are pretty inconclusive - down from 43% of the 1500 sample last year to 39% in 2008. But look at the figure for teenagers, tomorrow's potential music buyers. A shade up at 58%, and this was also the group which said it was most likely to carry on swapping music for free. There was also a belief that legal download services just weren't good enough - two in three said that legal sites couldn't offer the range of music that they could get by file-sharing.

But there's vindication in this survey for the music industry's campaign to get Internet Service Providers to join their campaign against piracy. In July the big ISPs agreed to send warning letters to persistent illegal downloaders and it looks as though that may have had more success in putting the frighteners on the pirates than the threat of legal action by the music industry. 61% of illegal downloaders said they believed they were being monitored by their ISPs and 72% said they'd stop if they got one of those scary letters.

After years of snail's-pace innovation by the music industry, consumers suddenly have an embarrassment of choices when it comes to legal digital services. But this report shows they are often more conservative than we might expect. Radio was still by far the most important way of discovering new music, and, when it comes to acquiring music, there's still a degree of wariness about digital options.

The survey respondents were asked to rank different methods in order, including buying CDs, subscription services, free music supported by ads, downloading to a PC, buying a Nokia Comes with Music phone and downloading to a mobile. And, you've guessed it, buying CDs was number one by a mile.(A friend who dropped by while I was writing this has told me he has just spent over £80 on a Bob Dylan three-CD collection, after scouring London to find it. But that may say more about my friends than the state of the music business).

That doesn't mean that CD sales won't keep on falling, and what will worry the music industry is the lack of enthusiasm for one of its big new ideas to replace those lost sales, mobile music. The numbers downloading to their mobiles had actually fallen, and over half said they were just not interested in trying it out.

But let's not assume that this revolution has been stopped in its tracks - or that consumers aren't changing. One fascinating part of the report deals with social networking and its growing importance for music fans. So which was the top music network? YouTube. Yes, the site which started as a simple way to share your favourite video clips, was cited by 41% of the respondents as the most important network for music, sweeping past MySpace which was number one last year. Why? Because they've found that just about any music video ever made is on the site.

The next challenge for the music industry is to turn all that passion about music on YouTube and MySpace into cash. The survey floats an interesting idea, asking whether people would be willing to act as sellers of music on sites like YouTube and MySpace, promoting bands they like and then getting a commission for each sale. 43% of those asked warmed to the idea, so when your friends start boring on about some fantastic new album you need to buy, you may have to question their motives.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technolog...digital_w.html

[Aussie Rebel]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

so you rant and rave about how much you hate torrents warez etc etc

then you call a law to stop them draconian?

or am i confusing you with cunningstunt?

If you are referring to me, I re posted and quoted a headline that came with the story.
if you click the link in the first post you will clearly see that. Don't shoot the messenger man

[~Ray]

I think it's good if it gives the average Joe a place to report copyright theft. the only recourse right now is a DMCA letter and an occasional lawsuit... but, now that the letter comes from the government, it may have more impact.

[Nautilus]

Originally Posted by GatorB

And that part never made into this bill. So why are you bitching about it?

Was wondering same thing.

[Tat2Jr]

Originally Posted by wootpr0n

Do you really think that the government gives a shit about pirated porn? Do you? The DOJ gets to decide who it wants to go after. I guaran-damn-tee you they won't be going after pornbb.org or any of the tube sites or average people downloading torrents with rips of your entire sites.

Bingo.

[Snake Doctor]

These are always really contentions discussions and a multi-page thread is pretty much guaranteed.

Makes me wish I was selling something in my sig

[brassmonkey]

bush is a flake

[wootpr0n]

Originally Posted by GatorB

And that part never made into this bill. So why are you bitching about it?

It didn't make it into this bill, but it almost did. And you can be sure that some Congressmen are already working on The Copyright Revision Act of 2009, and that the MPAA/RIAA will push for its inclusion.

[Aussie Rebel]

No opinion from Gideon?