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!)

[traviskicks]

Libertarian ping! To be added or removed freepmail me or post a message here.

[StoneWall Brigade]

I’ll be voting for Chuck Baldwin in Nov.

[cva66snipe]

At this point so will I. Paul was one of the better GOP canidates running this year but MSM schmucks like Hannity weren’t gonna have it. Jimmy Duncan was asked by the CP to consider running on the ticket also. Chuck is fine by me though. Between McCain, Obama, and Hillary, Chuck is the only choice that is not forcing a person into voting the lesser of evils.

[dcwusmc]

All but the tiny few who voted against this travesty! Like Dr. Paul. Who, by all rights, should be our next POTUS.

[dcwusmc]

I have made those very objections... and I find this act AND the so-called USA-PATRIOT act abominations of the highest order. I am surprised that many more conservatives have yet to object to them... unless it is not the Constitution for the United States you wish to conserve...

[Nailbiter]

ping

[Wolfie]

Not at all. Merely pointing out that the precedent has been set and trial-tested going back many years. Not knowing a crime is being committed on your property is no defense against seizure. Anybody who is counting on that in the face of this new law is in for a rude awakening.

[zeugma]

The Berne Convention (which the US has signed) states that all something needs is constructive notice to be copyrighted... and lately not even that. It's enough to prove that you wrote something first.

I've got a better idea. How about FedGov returning to a copyright law that a reasonable person might recognise as a "limted time"?

 The Constitution reads:

    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;

The entire Beatles catalog would be in the public domain if we had the same copyright the Founders of this nation thought was reasonable (28 years). There is no legitimate reason to have what we effectively have now, which is eternal copyright.

Hundreds of thousands if not millions of works are out of print and thus largely out of the public's reach because  copyright law has become nothing more than a Micky Mouse Protection racket for immortal corporations.

The current copyright law only makes sense if you are immortal.

[zeugma]

I can’t believe any court would let this stand. On second thought, yes I can......

Yup. And you can thank the war on drugs for establishing the precident.

THAT is why I oppose the drug war, because it is used as an excuse to shred the constitution. I don't give a damn about pot or anything else. No stupid law is keeping me from smoking dope. I keep myself from doing drugs because I have no desire of it.  

All you folks that have supported the WoD will eventually have the legal precidents established there used against you and yours. It is just a matter of time.

[zeugma]

Not at all. Merely pointing out that the precedent has been set and trial-tested going back many years. Not knowing a crime is being committed on your property is no defense against seizure. Anybody who is counting on that in the face of this new law is in for a rude awakening.

Quite true.

Bump. 

[MichiganMan]

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.

Yes, but do you understand that there are a lot of seemingly legal activities that are rendered illegal by the Digital Millenium Copyright Act?

Consider the example of music legally purchased by others on this thread who are will no longer be able to listen to the paid for songs due to Microsoft turning off the servers that verified that they paid for the song. They paid for the song, MS did not tell them they were only renting it temporarily, So a user may feel justified in copying that song to a non-protected format, ie. mp3. To do so is to defeat the DRM, an act explicitly declared illegal under the DMCA. Similarly, want to back up that legally purchased DVD before you hand it over to your eight year old? Or Copy the movie onto your laptop for later viewing? Same thing, copyright violation. Want to convert the songs on your legally purchased CD to mp3 for your mp3 player, but the CD has copy protection on it? Boom, DMCA violation.

Our party is as bought and paid for by the **AA in the area as the Dems. Our guys just came a lot cheaper.

[Mr. Silverback]

I have made those very objections...

Did you make them at the time the law was passed? Or did you suddenly realize that it was bad mojo when the libs started screaming about it in 2001?

I am surprised that many more conservatives have yet to object to them... unless it is not the Constitution for the United States you wish to conserve...

Yes, yes, anyone who doesn't agree with you on a civil rights issue is indeed an evil traitor to the republic. No hyperbole there. What specific provisions are unconstitutional?

[giotto]

Similarly, want to back up that legally purchased DVD before you hand it over to your eight year old? Or Copy the movie onto your laptop for later viewing? Same thing, copyright violation. Want to convert the songs on your legally purchased CD to mp3 for your mp3 player, but the CD has copy protection on it? Boom, DMCA violation.

I would never assume that it's OK to copy a DVD or CD. While it may seem reasonable to be able to make a "backup" copy, what's to stop someone from making 12 copies and selling them on eBay? I've seen plenty of fake ripoff DVD's for sale on eBay. I think that people acquire a sense of entitlement when it comes to copyrighted material. But songs and movies cost time and money to create. Where is it written that just because you pay $16 for a CD, you should be able to make another one just like it? Remember the old days, when you went to the theater and paid $20 for your family to see a movie one time? If you wanted to see it again, you had to pay another $20. We should just be happy that we can now purchase a disk and play it repeatedly for the whole clan at no additional expense.

[dcwusmc]

I objected at the time of its passage, just as I did with the bill submitted by the Clowntoon after OKC. How convenient that they have this BS all written and ready to go, just waiting an incident of such magnitude as 9/11 and OKC to submit it for passage. At such times, even I have to question what foreknowledge the Feddies might have had... Then I smack myself for being a conspiracy theorist. Then something ELSE happens and I smack myself for smacking myself.

OBTW, I never used or even thought the phrase, evil traitor, so your strawman is still alive and kicking. What _I_ have to say is that you are not conserving the Constitution when you cheer for more and more legislation which puts more and more power in the hands of the Feddies THAT WAS NEVER INTENDED FOR THEM TO HAVE by the Founders. Which YOU very much do. Whether it be the worst aspects of the so called war on terror (USA PATRIOT, etc), the war on some drugs, legislation of (false) morality, whatever, if it puts more power over the lives of others into the hands of FedGov, I have seen where you are ALL OVER it... so your posturing can be saved for another audience.

[cva66snipe]

I think the term "for commercial gain or profit" would cover a bootleg copy on E-bay. That would be clearly be a legit violation. On the other hand for private usage meaning copying a CD of your favorite hard to find music and putting the original in a safe place and using the copy in the car etc should be acceptable. If a person backs up their music library for private usage that should be allowed. Actually it has been done for decades.

Now do you want to complicate matters more? What if I want to sell my legit purchased CD to someone else? How long before a mandatory fee must be paid the artist? Why? Do I pay Chrysler one when I sell a vehicle? No the RIAA is a special lobbying group asking for unreasonable privileges and protections surpassing common sense and origional inten to such laws.

[cva66snipe]

Further point. If a person copies something that is supposedly a violation right? Now if person collected oh let's say baseball cards and took pictures of them for insurance purposes, they too could find themselves on the wrong side of the law.

[Mr. Silverback]

I objected at the time of its passage, just as I did with the bill submitted by the Clowntoon after OKC.

Excellent. That puts you ahead of 99% of those who object to the Patriot Act.

OBTW, I never used or even thought the phrase, evil traitor, so your strawman is still alive and kicking. What _I_ have to say is that you are not conserving the Constitution when you cheer for more and more legislation which puts more and more power in the hands of the Feddies THAT WAS NEVER INTENDED FOR THEM TO HAVE by the Founders. Which YOU very much do. Whether it be the worst aspects of the so called war on terror (USA PATRIOT, etc), the war on some drugs, legislation of (false) morality, whatever, if it puts more power over the lives of others into the hands of FedGov, I have seen where you are ALL OVER it... so your posturing can be saved for another audience.

Well now, if we're doing away with posturing, why don't you put away yours and answer my question: What specific Patriot Act provisions do you believe are unconstitutional? Can you cite them from the text of the law?

[MichiganMan]

Where is it written that just because you pay $16 for a CD, you should be able to make another one just like it?

http://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3513_7-5128652-1.html

You have the right to do so for non-commercial use under the Fair Use doctrine. Whats to stop you from making 16 copes? Well for one its been ruled that 10 copies is commercial use. Obviously selling any copy would be considered "Commercial"

[giotto]

In regard to making personal, non-commercial copies of CDs or DVDs, the EFF link you gave said this:

Although the legal basis is not completely settled, many lawyers believe that the following (and many other uses) are also fair uses:

This is hardly a definitive ruling on the issue. "Many lawyers" probably also think that there should be no intellectual property rights. The line is too blurry between personal use and commercial use. If I make a copy of a movie and give it to my brother, is that Fair Use? I would argue that it's not. Why? Because that copy represents lost revenue for the artist. If I had not given him the copy of the DVD, I might have ordered it from Amazon.com, and the artist would have received a small royalty from the sale.

[cva66snipe]

But if you had sold him your origional DVD then what? That will be RIAA’s next attack on consumers. Their next claim allowed to become law of the land will be you aren’t buying the DVD but rather the right to watch it nonsense.