House passes bill (HR 4279) that will let the RIAA take away your home for downloading music

http://www.boingboing.net/ ^ | May 9, 2008 | Cory Doctorow

[JerseyHighlander]

House passes bill that will let the RIAA take away your home for downloading music

Posted by Cory Doctorow, May 9, 2008 3:15 AM | permalink

Glenn sez,

I was just alerted that the House of Reps has passed HR 4279, with the lovely name, PRO-IP (Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008). Like the doublespeak PATRIOT Act and Peacekeeper missiles, PRO-IP puts local law enforcement in a position to demand the forfeiture in criminal proceedings of stuff used to violate copyright. Which means that instead of the RIAA simply trying to collect fines, they can also incite local authorities to collect all the computers and related gear that was used to pirate.

This isn't a judgment on my part as to whether piracy is good or bad (I think copyright deserves to be protected through reasonable methods), but I am always horrified when civil enforcement morphs into criminal enforcement. Conservatives and liberals should be up in arms alike that local prosecutors and/or police could intervene as they desire in essentially a private affair arranged by the RIAA, and permanently seize thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in private property in addition to any civil penalties.

If this bill is passed in its present form by the Senate and signed, that means there's no more pro forma RIAA lawsuit payoffs, because if you wind up settling with the RIAA, you could still lose all your stuff in addition to any fee you paid them.

This is particularly irksome in light of the MSN Music shutdown, about which the EFF has written a strong and powerful letter. It is increasingly likely a normal person could have purchased music legally from an online site, burned it to an ordinary audio CD, and in the right set of circumstances be branded a pirate because the original "granting" authority no longer exists to prove that the consumer was a legitimate purchasers.

The more the law is constructed to sweep in folks who are absolutely observant of it, the more we need broader protections.

PDF Link (Thanks, Glenn!)

[BlazingArizona]

It means they may take your home away if your KID is steeling music over the internet without even your knowledge.

And how do they know you downloaded protected property online? By checking the Internet addresses of people who download, then matching the data up with usage logs subpoenaed from Internet service providers. This means that if your ISP makes a recordkeeping error in handling addresses that may be reassigned hundreds of times a day, you also lose your house.

[aposiopetic]

Thanks for the ping. It is fair to say that every computer used by any of us has unlicensed copyrighted content in its memory. I suppose the authorities could now say that any of that content could be intended for other-than-fair use and concoct a reason for seizing the computer on the basis of prospective copyright infringement.

[Bon mots]

The rest of the world give authors copyright protection for about 50 years after their death.

The rest of the world isn't constrained by the Copyright Clause of the Constitution. To comply with the Berne Convention and follow what the rest of the world does is to violate the Constitution.

The US SIGNED the Berne Convention! One should not sign things that one has no intention of complying with!

The copyright clause says nothing about establishing a copyright office (featherbed bureaucracy that does nothing useful) and charging people an exorbitant sum for protection! In fact, it says pretty much the same thing as the Berne Convention!

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, the Copyright and Patent Clause (or Patent and Copyright Clause), the Intellectual Property Clause and the Progressive Clause, empowers the United States Congress:
“ To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Nothing in there about opening a humongous bureaucracy called the "Copyright Office" which does nothing but charge a sum for time-stamping - something which could be done online in seconds and for nearly free.

The copyright office does not evaluate works like the patent office must do. If you had a pet monkey and it banged on your word-processor and produced some gobbledygook, it would be copyrightable.

The copyright office is a relic of a bygone era, one which has no usefulness whatsoever, and one which is a burden upon producers of intellectual property. The entire mess exists as just another tax and time-wasting exercise for authors and producers of intellectual property. To not use this wasteful monopoly and pay the exorbitant fees is to effectively give up copyright protection in the USA.

Copyright protection is enjoyed by people all over the world - for free. The copyright office does not protect anyone, it's just a racket.

[papasmurf]

Reasonable men will obey reasonable laws.

[Mr. Silverback]

Still reading, but when I came acrodd this...

Like the doublespeak PATRIOT Act and Peacekeeper missiles,

...I knew that this guy is, at best, in "stopped-clock-is-right-twice-a-day" territory.

Whenever someone says the Patriot act is unamerican, I always look forward to their tales of how they objected just as long and loud about the same methods being applied to drug dealers and mobsters, but they never seem to have any stories like that...

[Fox_Mulder77]

This is a dumb law............... as the Chinese as stealing every song, movie, t.v. show and video made in America and reselling them for pennies throughout all of Asia.
Americans buy music............ look at the money itunes makes............ so going after your customers in court and taking away everything they own is misguided and it will ultimately blow up in their face.

[antiRepublicrat]

The US SIGNED the Berne Convention! One should not sign things that one has no intention of complying with!

They have the intention of complying with it. They've already violated the Constitution in implementing its terms, and I'm sure there's more to come.

Nothing in there about opening a humongous bureaucracy called the "Copyright Office"

It gives Congress the power to "promote," and the mechanism of such promotion is up to Congress as long as it doesn't violate the Clause.

something which could be done online in seconds and for nearly free.

I agree there. The copyright office is behind the times. I would like a set yearly fee for such a system with an API that bloggers, newspapers and others can connect to in order that posts are automatically registered. Even then, the Copyright Office would be running the service. But progress is being made, there is already an online service in beta, and the fee is $35.

The copyright office does not evaluate works like the patent office must do.

That's why a work is considered registered as soon as the Copyright Office receives it.

If you had a pet monkey and it banged on your word-processor and produced some gobbledygook, it would be copyrightable.

Wrong. There must be an original creative component to the work.

The copyright office does not protect anyone, it's just a racket.

You still have copyright without registration. However, without registration you don't have prima facie evidence of infringement nor do you get statutory damages. You can still sue for infringement though, and receive any actual damages. But if there are actual damages (you were making a profit from your work), you probably should have taken the time to register anyway.

I would prefer that nothing is copyrighted unless it is registered. That would remove any doubt for someone wanting to use a work as to whether it is copyrighted, whether the copyright has expired (the orphaned works problem), or who to ask permission from. The current system leaves doubt of those answers, and sometimes creates the impossibility of knowing the answer. That hinders instead of promotes the arts, which makes the situation unconstitutional.

[antiRepublicrat]

I always look forward to their tales of how they objected just as long and loud about the same methods being applied to drug dealers and mobsters

I have those objections. Principle does not change based on the situation.

[KoRn]

Wow!

[cva66snipe]

I wish there would have been either a Paul/Duncan or a Duncan/Paul POTUS ticket. Jimmy Duncan-R-TN is one of the few left in congress with any common sense.

[giotto]

All this for “music” that’s not worth paying for anyway? Why put your life in jeopardy? If it’s worth spending your precious time listening to, it’s worth paying for.

[Mr. Silverback]

OK, what did you do about them at the time they were applied to drug dealers and mobsters?

[Mr. Silverback]

Yeah, these guys should have been told “Hey, if a guy has done so much damage to you that he deserves to lose his house, you can go into civil court and sue him for his house. Now beat it.”

[Still Thinking]

Duh! It’s good for the goobermint and bad for their marks, er, employers, and I haven’t seen him pass up one of those yet.

[Still Thinking]

I mean, this guy even signs stuff he SAYS he is against.

[muawiyah]

You just know these RIAA pukes and their lawyers don't abide by either the immigration laws nor the child labor statutes.

Wonder if we could each contact our own Congresscritters and "complain" about RIAA and their clients NOT obeying those laws and asking for some massive ICE raids.

Seems to me there's no difference between a raid on RIAA or one of their lawyers and a raid on a chicken packer. Well, maybe a little difference ~ the RIAA guys probably pack or have body guards and might shoot back, so ICE could find themselves having to pre-empt the need for trials.

[Regulator]

I can't add anything to that! All Too True!

Real Altruists in the Rock'N'Roll recording biz, huh?

Whadda buncha creeps...

[muawiyah]

Just sent the following e-mail to the punk in chief, Conyers:

"Re: HR 4279

My understanding is this bill benefits primarily RIAA and their clients.

On a recent trip to California I observed at first hand the incredible depth of the use of illegal aliens and child labor by the RIAA beneficiaries, and by RIAA.

Supposedly they've never been raided by ICE ~ kind of considered out of bounds by everyone, particularly when it comes to the kids in their stables.

Do you think it's possible that you guys could get RIAA to agree to abide by the immigration laws and get rid of all their illegals?

Like, why should they get to violate the law with impunity while you pass legislation on their behalf to seize homes and toss widows and orphans into the street?

Doesn't seem fair does it?

I thought you'd agree.

Now, turn their asses in. Get ICE over there. Perpwalk some of your friends ~ show us you give a damned eh.

"

[Still Thinking]

But that’s just the point. We’re not talking about a definition of “piracy” that anyone rational enough to post here would possess. These chuckleheads are expanding the definition at such extreme velocity and to such a comic degree that there are any number of ways one could run afoul of this with music THEY FOOKING PAID FOR!! [ shouting not directed at you, dear gentle Freeper ]

[muawiyah]

Do you suppose RIAA agents make sure John gets his fill of access to some of the younger “stars”?