Bush signs PRO-IP Act into law

[TV-VCR 15]

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/13/bush-signs-pro-ip-act-into-law/

In a bid to avoid the lowest presidential approval rating in 70 years*, President Bush signed the PRO-IP Act into law today. While not quite on par with, say, an ultimate solution to the world economic crisis, the law will create new jobs, er, one new job: The Intellectual Property Czar.

Backed by the RIAA and MPAA, the PRO-IP Act has drawn criticism for its potential for extreme punishment. In its proposed state, the act could grant the government permission to seize all computers and compatible devices from a home if a single, pirated MP3 was discovered on one of the machines. So, about that approval rating ...

For a complete analysis of the PRO-IP Act as it applies to gaming, check out the latest LGJ column!quote>

Apparently (correct me if I'm wrong), if they find one illegal file anywhere on your computer (including those mythical "ghost files" as some people call them) they will come to your house and take away all electronic equipment that could serve as a storage medium (computers, MP3 players, cell phones, etc.)

[Godzillaman 21]

Yes...that always boosts approval ratings...

Good thing I'm Canadian...

[Jazzmaster 716]

[SimRabbit 48]

Godzillaman: Don't hold your breath.

Remember the Comcast throttling fiasco last year. The thing spread to Canada.

[panthersimcity4 162]

Heh, trying to stop pirating. The bad news for them is that there are literally millions of people out there pirating music every second. (I wouldn't be suprised if more than half of American household computers have pirated mp3s) Good luck RIAA

[Duke87 1,070]

Just goes to show you, Washington listens to big business more than the American people.

Because, you know, big business holds the purse strings. Don't wanna lose that campaign funding.

That, and politicians are older people, and it's typically older people who are very supportive of copyright law while its the younger folk (who certainly aren't in office and are less likely to vote, if they're even old enough to) that are more of the "down with the RIAA, screw the record industry" types.

Bush can't get re-elected. So he isn't worried so much about campaign funding. No, he really thinks he's doing the right thing here. Which is just sad.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

That, and politicians are older people, and it's typically older people who are very supportive of copyright law while its the younger folk (who certainly aren't in office and are less likely to vote, if they're even old enough to) that are more of the "down with the RIAA, screw the record industry" types. quote>

I imagine that many of those "older people" don't even know what the RIAA is.   And they will probably be told "oh, this law is to keep those crazy teenagers from stealing music" and decide that it's a good thing.

Originally posted by: panthersimcity4

Heh, trying to stop pirating. The bad news for them is that there are literally millions of people out there pirating music every second. (I wouldn't be suprised if more than half of American household computers have pirated mp3s) Good luck RIAA quote>

I don't know how accurate that "more than half" guess is.  I suspect it's a bit low.  But here is the part I would like to know more about:

the act could grant the government permission to seize all computers and compatible devices from a home if a single, pirated MP3 was discovered on one of the machines quote>

Why does this sound like the government suddenly has probable cause to search several million more computers than it did last week?

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

the act could grant the government permission to seize all computers and compatible devices from a home if a single, pirated MP3 was discovered on one of the machines quote>

Why does this sound like the government suddenly has probable cause to search several million more computers than it did last week?quote>

Would it be worth noting that a few weeks ago, while I was waiting to talk with one of the heads of the physics department, I was reading an article about how the RIAA was attempting to convince the court system that it had the right to force university IT departments to ferret out file trading students, because it was effectively impossible for the RIAA to do it itself?

[hamsterTK 93]

Actually I read once the percentage of people who have pirated stuff at least once is a appreciable amount, like 15% or so. This includes people who share media with friends. Besides people have always done this kind of thing, take a cassette recorder and hold it next to the radio.

I'm not condoning anything here just stating the reality.....

Now obviously, assuming that nothing shadowy is happening I am sure the main targets are going to be the big uploaders, people running servers, etc. Not really a big deal. You have to admit that those guys who upload things like newly released movies that aren't even on DVD yet have to be hurting something.

But if any ordinary users start getting targeted, i'd start to think

To me confiscating something that contains personal information for reasons like this just seems big-brotherish and suggests alterior motives. Kind of like the supposed terrorist who was caught only with having "information on the new york subway on her hard drive." You mean like a map?

 

[Cockatoo 2,262]

<Stupid American Accent>

...RIAA, what's that Chaney, is that like the thing with the American rifles or something... I love rifles... damn terrorists!

... sign the damn laws then, ha, it's not like I can become anymore un-populra.. pourla... popular... can I!

</Stupid American Accent>

Only 3 weeks left of this idiot.

[Deathtoall 28]

Governmental Terrorism! Lock up half the country too while your at it, and put the other half in labour camps!

[xV.I.N.C.E.N.T.x 0]

Originally posted by: Cockatoo-210893 <Stupid American Accent>

...RIAA, what's that Chaney, is that like the thing with the American rifles or something... I love rifles... damn terrorists!

... sign the damn laws then, ha, it's not like I can become anymore un-populra.. pourla... popular... can I!

</Stupid American Accent>

Only 3 weeks left of this idiot. quote>

 

I'm from America.....I am sure I have an accent... JUST LIKE YOU DO to me. 

I find offense to the "Stupid American accent" syntax quotes.  The American government DOES NOT represent the majority.  

It would be like me saying because you are from Australia, that the only thing Austrailians do it listen to Olivia Newton John, and watch Bindy Erwin shows.  

I am not a Bush/Cheney supporter.  

An American accent, or any accent for that matter should not constitute jerk-like behavior. 

BTW...it's 3 weeks to elections....not the inaugarations.

-VIN!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Patricius Maximus 236]

One of the last steps on the road to totalitatrianism in America. The Constitution is not followed, the Supreme Court does not protect it (surprised), and even worse, the people do not do anything about it.

Now, let me see. As far as I know the US government can sieze your computer and other electronics at will, sieze your land for corporations, deny you the right to a fair trial on suspicion of "terrorism", read your mail, read your e-mails, bug your house, listen in to every single phone call, take over your bank, invade countries at will, discriminate against atheists, and search your house.

That's all I know of.

I would also like to draw attention to the US Constitution.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seizedquote>

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.quote>

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.quote>

So, Amendment V provides that no property shall be taken for public use without just compensation. In my view at least, the government with this act is:

1) Taking property (electronics) without just compensation

2) The taking of the property is not for public use.

3) The government does not have a warrant to sieze the property.

4) The government does not have probable cause, and it is not supported by Oath or Affirmation.

Therefore, the PRO-IP act is unconstitutional (violates Amendments IV, V, IX), but don't expect the Supreme Court to declare that. They do not defend the Constitution any more.

Now, I don't expect anyone to agree with me -- everyone's interpretation is different. Mine has the most rights for the people, and forbids the government from interfering with the people's private affairs. I believe that this was the 'original intent' of the 'Founding Fathers' of the US.

I live outside the United States, but close to the border, and I have witnessed in the last 10 years the turn from "government serves the people" to "people serve the government".

- Patricius Maximus

[nthooze 13]

Just more of the same out of this tyrant. Big brother prying into our privacy. Patriot act, nsa wiretapping......

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

One of the last steps on the road to totalitatrianism in America. The Constitution is not followed, the Supreme Court does not protect it (surprised), and even worse, the people do not do anything about it. quote>

Thank you, Paticius Maximus.   I have been concerned about this for a while but somehow it has become unpatriotic to follow the Constitution.

Therefore, the PRO-IP act is unconstitutional (violates Amendments IV, V, IX), but don't expect the Supreme Court to declare that. They do not defend the Constitution any more.  quote>

I still have hope.  I believe this law will be challenged on Constitutional grounds.  and I would like to hear the reasoning for upholding this law as Constituational.

Now, I don't expect anyone to agree with me -- everyone's interpretation is different. Mine has the most rights for the people, and forbids the government from interfering with the people's private affairs. I believe that this was the 'original intent' of the 'Founding Fathers' of the US. quote>

It's not just you.  I believe so as well.

[Duke87 1,070]

From the article about music and movies:

The MPAA is newer to the anti-online piracy front than the RIAA, but online piracy is a convenient scapegoat for box office sales not living up to all expectations.quote>

While I do not doubt that revenue is lost due to people watching bootleg DVDs, there is another key factor at play here: movie tickets have become ridiculously expensive. 10 bucks a head to see a movie around here. And the concessions are ridiculously overpriced, too.

So there are a lot of people (like me), who aren't pirating movies but are simply saying "why the hell am I going to pay that to see it in theaters? Screw it, I'll rent it when it comes out on DVD".

The proliferation of huge screen HDTVs and surround sound systems certainly helps this, too, since now (for people who care) the novelty of having to go to the theater to see it "on the big screen" is diinished. They can see it on a fair sized screen in their own living room.

And this definitely does hurt since the industry really doesn't make money from people renting movies (although companies like Netflix certainly do).

Still, some people do buy the DVD, so some of that is countered.

The movie theater is a business who's days are numbered, if you ask me. As more and more convenient methods of watching movies and other types of media become more readily become available, they will gradually become obsolete.

And the movie industry will simply have to adjust to that.

Originally posted by: SkiGeek I would like to hear the reasoning for upholding this law as Constituational.quote>

I can tell you right now what it's going to be: the constitution protects you against search and seizure only without probable cause. If you're reasonably suspected to have pirated material, you have broken the law and therefore the probable cause is there.

Can't say I agree with that argument, but there you have it.

[Explodingsims 3]

Yep, this'll help your approval ratings soar!

Now, I don't expect anyone to agree with me -- everyone's interpretation is different. Mine has the most rights for the people, and forbids the government from interfering with the people's private affairs. I believe that this was the 'original intent' of the 'Founding Fathers' of the US. quote>

I agree with you. This is exactly what they wanted.

[MrCinatit 30]

He has created another "Czar" position? Seriously?

Me thinks the guy needs a serious history lesson as to the historic definition of the word "czar".

Besides, who is to say the guy taking over for him won't get rid of half these positions?

[screamingman12 30]

My full rant would go far outside the context of this article, and would probably get me banned from this site. But it suffices to say this:

The Constitution is a document that is to be respected in the creation and passage of laws. By the passage of this, Emperor Bush II has shown his complete disregard for it, as well as all things protected by it. He should be tried for crimes against the state when he leaves office, and is no longer capable of doing his job competantly.

Why did the senate approve this unanimously? The RIAA lobbyists who got to this guy should be hung from the highest tree to be found.

But most of all, why does nobody care?

[Hahayoudied 3]

Why didn't Bush get IMPEACHED a long time ago?!

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Hahayoudied

Why didn't Bush get IMPEACHED a long time ago?!quote>

Because then Cheney would have become President.  and no one wants that.

[screamingman12 30]

What I tried to post before:

http://img521.imageshack.us/my.php?image=failbushpl3.png

[The_Hutt 11]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus[/i

So, Amendment V provides that no property shall be taken for public use without just compensation. In my view at least, the government with this act is:

1) Taking property (electronics) without just compensation

2) The taking of the property is not for public use.

3) The government does not have a warrant to sieze the property.

4) The government does not have probable cause, and it is not supported by Oath or Affirmation.

Therefore, the PRO-IP act is unconstitutional (violates Amendments IV, V, IX), but don't expect the Supreme Court to declare that. They do not defend the Constitution any more.

Now, I don't expect anyone to agree with me -- everyone's interpretation is different. Mine has the most rights for the people, and forbids the government from interfering with the people's private affairs. I believe that this was the 'original intent' of the 'Founding Fathers' of the US.

I live outside the United States, but close to the border, and I have witnessed in the last 10 years the turn from "government serves the people" to "people serve the government".

- Patricius Maximusquote>

There's some flaws in your analysis I feel compelled to point out:

1-2: In matters where a crime (especially a felony) is committed, you do not have a right to retain the property used or procured during the process of committing the crime. If I make $1,000,000 from selling crystal meth and get busted, the government is well within its rights to take it. If I have a beat up car and I'm making drug sales out of it (or committing any other felony), the police will certainly confiscate that car (quite often they use cars taken in this manner for undercover activity). They don't need to compensate the offender.

3/4. Authorities are still required to obtain a search warrant under this law, as with any activity involving the entry of a private household. To obtain a warrant, probable cause is required (i.e. proof or reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is occuring). I'll agree with you that the government has been really pushing the boundary on this in terms of wiretapping, but it's not germane to the topic at hand since that only falls within the jurisdiction of national security interests (of which pirating of software is not). This law doesn't give carte blanche discretion to authorities to search and seize without a warrant.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: screamingman12

Emperor Bush II quote>

Personally, I'd prefer to call him "President George III". More historically ironic that way.

The Constitution is a document that is to be respected in the creation and passage of laws. By the passage of this, Emperor Bush II has shown his complete disregard for it, as well as all things protected by it. He should be tried for crimes against the state when he leaves office, and is no longer capable of doing his job competantly. quote>

Meh. This isn't the first time he's ignored the constitution. Politicians nowadays simply do whatever the hell they want (or at east what'll get them re-elected). Nobody worries about following the rules.

As a pirate (no, the other kind of pirate) once said, "They're more like guidelines, really."

Why did the senate approve this unanimously?quote>

That's really the scary part. Unanimously? That just doesn't happen. Everything is partisan to some degree.

The RIAA lobbyists who got to this guy should be hung from the highest tree to be found.quote>

An old school lynching. Sounds nice.

But most of all, why does nobody care?quote>

Culture of apathy. Caring about things like politics is uncool and dorky.

[GMT 389]

reminds me of this law we have here that makes you a music-pirate by just copying you legaly bought music (be it cd or mp3) to a different storing device than the cd it was pressed to or the hdd you saved the bought mp3...

well, it is sort of a step one can understand.

I mean, if the labels ain't got enough money because almost everyone gets the music the illegal way, they can't pay the artists no more, and if the artists don't get no money, they don't compose tracks no more, because artists that do it for the sole purpose of making music are rare. after all, they are some sort of employees who have to feed the kids and pay the rent (ok, I doubt they've rented the 5million dollar mansion on mulholland drive, but I think you get my idea).

after all, this would lead us to the death of music.

I totally understand that the music industry wants to work against this, and in some sort, they have my support.

but then again, what's the big big big big big flaw, it's just the same way we have it with securom:

you hit the wrong people.

just like securom hits the legit gamer with all the problems it produces, laws like pro-ip or the european counterpart hit the legit buyer by putting him on a same level with the pirates.

I mean, you buy a disc, put it on the pc, mp3 player, mabye as a ringtone on your cell and now you get busted for this. great. you buy something. you own it. as long as you don't illegally distribute it, you can do whatever the f... you want.

and if I feel like I have to burn a billion cds with the same track all over them to decorate my house, then I feel this way. you can't pirate what you legaly bought!

not to mention that this goes the same direction it goes with anything else: the smalltime occasional downloader who goes for a song he just can't find the legal way cuz the cd isn't sold no more and stuff, get's busted.

the big fish who rips 20 movies and 500 songs a day comes out clean.

just like they bust you when you're 5 miles over the limit, and the moron who goes 3 digits through town at night is fine aswell...

[Cockatoo 2,262]

Originally posted by: xV.I.N.C.E.N.T.x

I'm from America.....I am sure I have an accent... JUST LIKE YOU DO to me. 

I find offense to the "Stupid American accent" syntax quotes.  The American government DOES NOT represent the majority.  

It would be like me saying because you are from Australia, that the only thing Austrailians do it listen to Olivia Newton John, and watch Bindy Erwin shows.  

I am not a Bush/Cheney supporter.  

An American accent, or any accent for that matter should not constitute jerk-like behavior. 

BTW...it's 3 weeks to elections....not the inaugarations.

-VIN!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote>

Lol, Vincent, I was implying that Bush's accent sounds stupid, which it dose because he can not pronounce words correctly and frequently stumbles or says the wrong thing.

I didn't say THE American accent was stupid, or YOUR accent was stupid did I? Sorry if you took offence to that.

Oh, and another little known fact about Australia, our main form of transport is Kangaroo.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

1-2: In matters where a crime (especially a felony) is committed, you do not have a right to retain the property used or procured during the process of committing the crime. If I make $1,000,000 from selling crystal meth and get busted, the government is well within its rights to take it. If I have a beat up car and I'm making drug sales out of it (or committing any other felony), the police will certainly confiscate that car (quite often they use cars taken in this manner for undercover activity). They don't need to compensate the offender.quote>

Well, yes they can do that, when a crime is committed, and they have a warrant based on probable cause.

About the compensation, see the response below.

3/4. Authorities are still required to obtain a search warrant under this law, as with any activity involving the entry of a private household. To obtain a warrant, probable cause is required (i.e. proof or reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is occuring).quote>

Well, that's a step up from the warrantless wiretapping.

But, I ask you a question in this scenario:

You pirate some music on your desktop computer, and the authorities find out. Then the police get a warrant to sieze the computer (because it was used to commit a crime). Then they come to your house, and sieze every electronic device you own.

In the last act of this scenario, is that constitutional? Do the police have probable cause that the pirated file was on every single of those electronic devices?

Now, in this case, the siezure of the desktop (which they had a warrant for), is not covered under the "just compensation" clause. 

But, since they are siezing the other property without a warrant, then would they not be required to pay compensation?

---

One of the last steps on the road to totalitatrianism in America. The Constitution is not followed, the Supreme Court does not protect it (surprised), and even worse, the people do not do anything about it.quote>

Thank you, Paticius Maximus.   I have been concerned about this for a while but somehow it has become unpatriotic to follow the Constitution.quote>

Well, I'm glad you agree. Following the Constitution is the mark of a true patriot. Following the government is not.

It's not just you.  I believe so as well.quote>

I don't think it's just me. But I also recognize that my interpretation is vastly different than, say, the Supreme Court's. And I know that some uphold the Court's decisions, whatever they may be.

Speaking of the Supreme Court, the writers of the Constitution made a grave mistake in Article III, hardly providing any instructions for the judiciary.

Below is a quote from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Jarvis in 1820:

To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.quote>

A prophecy of things to come 190 years later? Sometimes I think so.

I would like to hear the reasoning for upholding this law as Constituational.quote>

I can tell you right now what it's going to be: the constitution protects you against search and seizure only without probable cause. If you're reasonably suspected to have pirated material, you have broken the law and therefore the probable cause is there.quote>

Duke, I guess that's the only argument that can be made in it's favor. Of course, it's a lot easier to do so if you ignore the Fifth Amendment. But I don't see it being repealed any time soon....

Why did the senate approve this unanimously?quote>

That's really the scary part. Unanimously? That just doesn't happen. Everything is partisan to some degree.quote>

Yes, it's scary when they approve something like that overwhelmingly. It's called 'bipartisanship'. 

One person at the Rally for the Republic said, "It seems we have a choice between the stupid party and the evil party. And when they do something stupid and evil, it's called bipartisanship."

But most of all, why does nobody care?quote>

Complacency. The worst enemy of democracy.

People become complacent, take their rights for granted, then they don't use their rights. Then they don't want to protect them. Then they think that it is the government's duty to protect their rights, when it is government that infringed on them in the first place.

The three branches of government are said to check and balance each other. But there is another check and balance -- the people.

The people check on all three branches, and ensure that their rights are not violated. When this check is removed, the government does whatever it wants.

That's what I've found with most people I've met. Not to say that any particular person is like that, but that's what I've seen.

Why didn't Bush get IMPEACHED a long time ago?!quote>

"Impeachment is off the table."

- Nancy Pelosi

I think that both Bush and Cheney should be impeached, but most congressmen are against it. I think 3 people have issued articles of impeachment, but they're still stuck in committee.

The Constitution is a document that is to be respected in the creation and passage of laws. By the passage of this, Emperor Bush II has shown his complete disregard for it, as well as all things protected by it.quote>

Emperor Bush II -- I like it. Although I think he should be the first, since his father wasn't much of an emperor.

But, I do agree with you.

He has created another "Czar" position? Seriously?quote>

Yes, seriously. The "Intellectual Property Czar" (he's supposed to protect it ).

Also, I think I can protect my own intellectual property without his help. Besides, a "czar" -- as in autocrat? I don't think I want him in charge of it.

- Patricius Maximus

[threeswept 12]

Originally posted by: panthersimcity4 Heh, trying to stop pirating. The bad news for them is that there are literally millions of people out there pirating music every second. (I wouldn't be suprised if more than half of American household computers have pirated mp3s) Good luck RIAA quote>

Oh, I get it. It's kinda like the War on Drugs...cause that's been so effective.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus One of the last steps on the road to totalitatrianism in America. The Constitution is not followed, the Supreme Court does not protect it (surprised), and even worse, the people do not do anything about it.

quote>

Because Americans tend to be apathetic or Puritan. So, either one doesn't care because they like to be led like sheep. Or, one cares so much that there has to be control in every aspect and must conform to some super conservative ideology.

Amendments aren't upheld in court very effectively, if at all. And, are also continually edited to fit the needs or wants of those in power. Eg - the 1st Amendment of free speech - well, unless you're the President and you don't want to hear the protestors. So, you bus them to a fenced in park 2 miles away and place coaches between the road and the park so that the media and anyone passing by doesn't see you protesting. I would also agree that the 4th through 9th Amendments are violated every day by the government.

Now, I don't expect anyone to agree with me -- everyone's interpretation is different. Mine has the most rights for the people, and forbids the government from interfering with the people's private affairs. I believe that this was the 'original intent' of the 'Founding Fathers' of the US.quote>

I completely agree - and, it isn't just you. 

[BurroDiablo 222]

Coming from a man who just gave hundreds of Billions of Dollars of taxpayers money to people who already have hundreds of billions of dollars, I don't think he gives a toss about his approval rating. No doubt in my mind that he doesn't actually what he's given... he's just handed them by a guy in a rabbit costume and told if he signs he'll get to ride the Trikey for half an hour.

[patriots_1228 51]

possibly the dumbest law ever.

its just an excuse to take teh internetz and communication away from us, so that we don't get access to any media besides Fox25.