Congress Rewrites the Rules...

[ericlp]

One law already on the books makes it illegal to circumvent anticopying technology. But, under the intellectual property protection act of 06, it would be illegal to even TRY defeating it. To give the law fangs, investigators would get to seize both property and records including server records and install wiretaps without asking a judge...

Where you thinking of copying something in public domain? The new law would criminalize copying, even if the material is not registered with the US Copyright office. Between this and the notorious broadcast-flag bill, the consumers right to copy under certain fair-use conditions may get legislated out of existence...

Looks like the RIA is in bed with the bush admin.

Wow, I remember when all the right wingers were saying well, "they are only going to wire tap your phone with out a court order if you make calls out side of the country..."

Face it you gave up your rights ever since 9/11 and it won't stop here. All they have to do is label you a terrorist and they can do what they want. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if they sent one of your kids off to a toture camp because he was running a server and they knew that he / she had inside information they wanted...

Wake up little sheep's it's happening right here and now. And get to use to the new america...

Text

 

[Craig234]

I strongly support copyright laws - they protect our very system of creating new content and are key to our society's well being, IMO.

However, I oppose the foolish laws based on greed that can be enacted, the type you get when you let industries write the laws. The good of society should drive the agenda both for protecting the content creators' incentive, and for the free distribution of content which has only someone's ability to leech parasitic profits, and not any legitimate benefit, at issue.

 

[yllus]

Where did that state that the new law would criminalize copying in the public domain?

I disagree strongly with the anti-circumvention portion of the DMCA. Also with all asset forfeiture laws, and the impounding of records by copyright holders. You've gone a little above and beyond in your diatribe here though... None of this has anything to do with 9/11 or terrorism.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: ericlp
One law already on the books makes it illegal to circumvent anticopying technology. But, under the intellectual property protection act of 06, it would be illegal to even TRY defeating it. To give the law fangs, investigators would get to seize both property and records including server records and install wiretaps without asking a judge...

Where you thinking of copying something in public domain? The new law would criminalize copying, even if the material is not registered with the US Copyright office. Between this and the notorious broadcast-flag bill, the consumers right to copy under certain fair-use conditions may get legislated out of existence...

Looks like the RIA is in bed with the bush admin.

Wow, I remember when all the right wingers were saying well, "they are only going to wire tap your phone with out a court order if you make calls out side of the country..."


Face it you gave up your rights ever since 9/11 and it won't stop here. All they have to do is label you a terrorist and they can do what they want. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if they sent one of your kids off to a toture camp because he was running a server and they knew that he / she had inside information they wanted...

Wake up little sheep's it's happening right here and now. And get to use to the new america...

Text

When did Congress become part of the Bush Administration?

When did all the right wingers say that?

 

[Rainsford]

Bush and Republicans: "We're against big government, we swear! You know, except when we're for it."

Anybody wonder why stuff like this is allowed to go on? Such draconian "anti-copyright" measures CLEARLY do not benefit consumers/voters, yet if any Republican is called onto the carpet by their supporters, I'd be very surprised.

Note: This post is Copyright Rainsford and has been 2ROT-13 copy protected. Reading it is a violation of the DMCA and may subject you to civil and criminal penalties.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Bush and Republicans: "We're against big government, we swear! You know, except when we're for it."

Anybody wonder why stuff like this is allowed to go on? Such draconian "anti-copyright" measures CLEARLY do not benefit consumers/voters, yet if any Republican is called onto the carpet by their supporters, I'd be very surprised.

Note: This post is Copyright Rainsford and has been 2ROT-13 copy protected. Reading it is a violation of the DMCA and may subject you to civil and criminal penalties.

Ya, I copied it! Sue me!!!!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Bush and Republicans: "We're against big government, we swear! You know, except when we're for it."

Anybody wonder why stuff like this is allowed to go on? Such draconian "anti-copyright" measures CLEARLY do not benefit consumers/voters, yet if any Republican is called onto the carpet by their supporters, I'd be very surprised.

Note: This post is Copyright Rainsford and has been 2ROT-13 copy protected. Reading it is a violation of the DMCA and may subject you to civil and criminal penalties.

Ya, I copied it! Sue me!!!!

Heh, indeed. Of course I'm not just going to sue you in civil court, I'm going to alert the FBI and they are going to throw you in jail

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Bush and Republicans: "We're against big government, we swear! You know, except when we're for it."

Anybody wonder why stuff like this is allowed to go on? Such draconian "anti-copyright" measures CLEARLY do not benefit consumers/voters, yet if any Republican is called onto the carpet by their supporters, I'd be very surprised.

Note: This post is Copyright Rainsford and has been 2ROT-13 copy protected. Reading it is a violation of the DMCA and may subject you to civil and criminal penalties.

Ya, I copied it! Sue me!!!!

Heh, indeed. Of course I'm not just going to sue you in civil court, I'm going to alert the FBI and they are going to throw you in jail

I think I'll just stay North of the border. HA!

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: yllus
Where did that state that the new law would criminalize copying in the public domain?

I disagree strongly with the anti-circumvention portion of the DMCA. Also with all asset forfeiture laws, and the impounding of records by copyright holders. You've gone a little above and beyond in your diatribe here though... None of this has anything to do with 9/11 or terrorism.

? Amends existing law to permit criminal enforcement of copyright violations even if the work was not registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.

During a speech in November, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales endorsed the idea and said at the time that he would send Congress draft legislation. Such changes are necessary because new technology is "encouraging large-scale criminal enterprises to get involved in intellectual-property theft," Gonzales said, adding that proceeds from the illicit businesses are used, "quite frankly, to fund terrorism activities."

You do know how to read don't you? Run Bit torrent or swap out your PS2 games, or copy and paste anything and you are labled "terrorism activities..." Sounds like 911 BS to me.

Ok, I am not saying that copying games/music/movies etc...etc... is a good thing, you should go see movies and buy computer programs and music that you support. But, wirtaping your phone? Dunno, hope you don't value your privacy much in the good ol USA...

Be forwarned not only are they watching but they are now listening in as well... It's only gonna get worse.

 

[ProfJohn]

I am guessing that the "try to defeat copy protection" is there in order to outlaw things like DVD copy and other ways people get around the law.

They made a system to prevent the copying of DVDs and some guy breaks the system and posts his results for everyone, while saying I did not do this so people could copy stuff etc etc. BS maybe you did it for the challenge of doing it, but posting on the net and claiming that you are innocent is total BS.

Seems like they are working a way to stop that from happening in the future. No longer will excuses like his be allowed.

Microsoft creates a new system to prevent coping, you release a system for getting around it, you go to jail for breaking the law.

Don't see how this effects the law abiding members of the population.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I strongly support copyright laws - they protect our very system of creating new content and are key to our society's well being, IMO.

However, I oppose the foolish laws based on greed that can be enacted, the type you get when you let industries write the laws. The good of society should drive the agenda both for protecting the content creators' incentive, and for the free distribution of content which has only someone's ability to leech parasitic profits, and not any legitimate benefit, at issue.

you`ll have to forgive ericlp he left his tin foil hat at hone..lol

 

[senseamp]

So does that mean I have to stop downloading warez and movies off bittorrent? As long as that stuff is legal, I don't really care what the Congress has to say

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: yllus
Where did that state that the new law would criminalize copying in the public domain?

I disagree strongly with the anti-circumvention portion of the DMCA. Also with all asset forfeiture laws, and the impounding of records by copyright holders. You've gone a little above and beyond in your diatribe here though... None of this has anything to do with 9/11 or terrorism.

? Amends existing law to permit criminal enforcement of copyright violations even if the work was not registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.

During a speech in November, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales endorsed the idea and said at the time that he would send Congress draft legislation. Such changes are necessary because new technology is "encouraging large-scale criminal enterprises to get involved in intellectual-property theft," Gonzales said, adding that proceeds from the illicit businesses are used, "quite frankly, to fund terrorism activities."

You do know how to read don't you? Run Bit torrent or swap out your PS2 games, or copy and paste anything and you are labled "terrorism activities..." Sounds like 911 BS to me.

Ok, I am not saying that copying games/music/movies etc...etc... is a good thing, you should go see movies and buy computer programs and music that you support. But, wirtaping your phone? Dunno, hope you don't value your privacy much in the good ol USA...

Be forwarned not only are they watching but they are now listening in as well... It's only gonna get worse.

Are you stupid? Is your copying games/music/movies the same as a criminal enterprise engaging in IP theft? Goddamn people are dumb around here.

 

[ElFenix]

i'm trying to figure out the connection between large scale pirate organizations (not the ones that post stuff for free on BT and elsewhere, but those that sell pirated discs, which ericlp seems unable to grasp) and terrorism. he is saying that the guy on the street corner selling illicit DVDs is part of al-qaeda. sounds like a load of crap to me. honestly, i'd like to be in the room when stuff like this comes out of politicians mouths, just to ask them what the fsck they are smoking. if he can provide the money trail, then fine, but i don't think it's there.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am guessing that the "try to defeat copy protection" is there in order to outlaw things like DVD copy and other ways people get around the law.

I see it very differently: lobbyists to corporate-paid congressmen are working to find ways around law. The main law being Sony v. Universal; open for Congress to pin, since it's a court precedent.

They made a system to prevent the copying of DVDs and some guy breaks the system and posts his results for everyone, while saying I did not do this so people could copy stuff etc etc. BS maybe you did it for the challenge of doing it, but posting on the net and claiming that you are innocent is total BS.

Um, no. "Some guy" breaks the system, posts his results for everyone, gets taken to court, and wins, because he was in the right. Interestingly enough, that "some guy" works in the US, now, which is just crazy.

Seems like they are working a way to stop that from happening in the future. No longer will excuses like his be allowed.

It was an explanation, not an excuse. He bought a DVD, and in so doing, should have a right to be able to play it on his computer.

From Wikipedia:
"The defense argued that no illegal access was obtained to anyone else's information, since Johansen owned the DVDs himself. They also argued that it is legal under Norwegian law to make copies of such data for personal use. The verdict was announced on January 7, 2003, acquitting Johansen of all charges.

This being the verdict of the district court, two further levels of appeals were available to the prosecutors, to the appeals court and then to the Supreme Court. ?kokrim filed an appeal on January 20, 2003 and it was reported on February 28 that the appeals court (Borgarting lagmannsrett) had agreed to hear the case.

Johansen's second DeCSS trial began in Oslo on December 2, 2003, and resulted in an acquittal on December 22, 2003. ?kokrim announced on January 5, 2004 that it would not appeal the case to the Supreme Court."

Microsoft creates a new system to prevent coping, you release a system for getting around it, you go to jail for breaking the law.

Which is ridiculous, and goes completely counter to the spirit of copyrights and patents; which is to spur innovation in arts. Hackers have been innovating for thousands of years; lawyers and stagnant large businesses haven't been.

Don't see how this effects the law abiding members of the population.

That might have something to do with getting sheered on a regular basis.