Oh, fer pete's sake

[unixronin]

As if copyright law wasn't being abused enough already, Congress is preparing to amend copyright law to make infringement penalties more severe and create not one, but TWO new Federal bureaucracies to enforce copyright law.  First, there's a new agency (to be called WHIPER, "White House Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative" — is that a stupid name for an agency, or what?) whose head would be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, appearing to put the position on a par with the Attorney General (in salary as well as in seniority).  WHIPER appears to be for overseas copyright violation, and would include 10 "intellectual property attaches" dispatched to US embassies.  Then as if that wasn't enough, a new Intellectual Property Enforcement Division will be created under the Department of Justice.

Among other provisions, the new law would make maximum penalties easier to obtain by eliminating the "ten works within 1980 days" requirement, and would apply civil asset forfeiture to any computer or network hardware used to "facilitate" a copyright crime.  Not "used to COMMIT a copyright crime", mind you, but "used to FACILITATE a copyright crime."  What does "facilitating a copyright crime" include?  Does that mean that if someone sells something on eBay that turns out to be illegally copied, the Justice Department gets to go seize all of eBay's hardware?  Your guess is as good as mine.  Does an ISP "facilitate" copyright crime by allowing copyrighted works to flow across its network?  How about a common carrier?  Does Dell "facilitate" copyright crime by selling computers?  Microsoft, by selling operating systems?  Rio and Apple, by making MP3 players?  TDK and Memorex, for selling CD blanks?  Samsung and Plextor for making CD and DVD burners?  TiVo for making DVRs?

TEH STUPID!!!  IT BURNS!!!

(Rumors that the RIAA have been granted exemption from due process and the Fourth Amendment are probably exaggerated.  Somewhat.  So far.)

Can't we just round up the whole of Congress and tar-and-feather the bastards?

Comments

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

Just goes to show you...you get the government you pay for.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Whether you wanted to pay for it or not — and right now, we're paying for more government than ever before (and charging most of it to the already-overextended national credit card).

"We're from the government, and we're here to help rob you blind."

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

I wasn't thinking in terms of taxes, more in terms of the *AA buying their own legislation and legislators.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Not the first time. They got recording contracts declared "work for hire" by paying some clerk to alter a key paragraph in the applicable law. Why they've never been prosecuted for it is beyond me.

[wyrdling.livejournal.com]

i never heard about that. can you illuminate? (how long ago did this happen?)

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I'm unclear on the details, but apparently some years back, a group of the record companies slipped a file clerk in Sacramento a sizeable sum of money to change the wording of a key piece of California law, or regulation with the force of law (I'm uncertain which), that had the effect of reclassifying all work done on record-company contracts in California as "work for hire", which meant that the record company, not the artists, owned all rights to the work. That's about all I can remember, though. If memory serves, i learned about this about 10-15 years ago.

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

Why, do you think that'd help?

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm sure there were at least 5 people who won't vote for it.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

"Any computer or network hardware used to facilitate", if rigorously applied and enforced, allows the fedgov to seize basically every last bit of fiber on the planet.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that was sort of my point.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

You'd think that, say, AT&T would campaign against this.

How fucked are we when my first reaction is "which corporate interest will have to appeal in my favor to not get screwed by this new law?"

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

heh.

As I was saying elsewhere just the other day, I find it depressing that there are so many subjects — politics, economy, environment, foreign policy, energy, and more — that I find myself pondering at different times and thinking, "We are SO screwed."

[roseate1.livejournal.com]

The only comfort I find in times like that is "the wheel always turns". One way or another, they'll overreach, there'll be push back, the empire will crumble, the oppressors will be overthrown, people will act for change... something will happen, something always happens, it's just a matter of "when" and "how".

Cold comfort though, sometimes, I'll admit.

[cymrullewes.livejournal.com]

you are here by invited to a Housewarming on 1/5/08 in Gilford, NH. E-mail alaric@caerllewys.net for directions.

[house-pundit.livejournal.com]

One, how close is it to getting out of committee? A lot of stupid legislation gets introduced, people freak out, and it dies in committee just like the guy who proposed it and his co-signers really wanted to happen in the first place. Political posturing.

Which doesn't mean this couldn't be farther along?

Two, can you say "unconstitutionally vague and overbroad"?

It'll get thrown out by the courts the first time it's challenged.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Two, can you say "unconstitutionally vague and overbroad"?
It'll get thrown out by the courts the first time it's challenged.

One certainly hopes so.

[jilara.livejournal.com]

Gods, I dispise weasel-word lawmakers.

I will quote only American definitions, since this is American law (no Oxford dictionary):
Facilitate -
Merriam Webster and American Heritage: to make easier
Dictionary.com: 1. to make easier or less difficult; help forward (an action, a process, etc.): Careful planning facilitates any kind of work.
2. to assist the progress of (a person).

In this so vague that you could even apply it to thought-crime, like suggesting over a computer that one could do this (or giving instructions on how to burn a CD), on the grounds it would make it easier for someone to act. And definitely applies to any means or media.

[novel-tharkun.livejournal.com]

Beautiful. If I read this correctly, then you can say all who taught or had opportunity to teach or dissuade the perpetrator facilitated the crime.

Is it just my memory, or wasn't intellectual property law specifically written that the discovery, investigation, & proof of violation fell upon the IP holder?

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

In this so vague that you could even apply it to thought-crime,

I believe it's so vague and broad that it would be immediately thrown out by the Supreme Court as unconstitutionally vague. As written, it amounts to an unrestricted license to seize virtually any computer, anywhere, for any reason, without a warrant. Just for starters, it clearly violates the Fourth Amendment.