You know what we need? For the Justice Department to do the RIAA's work for them!

[Lemur]

This (http://techdirt.com/articles/20071107/184854.shtml) is some sad stuff. Apparently some of our bought-and-paid-for-Senators are introducing the Pirate Act (http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9813358-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20) for the fourth time. In essence, they want the Justice Department to handle the business of suing P2P pirates on behalf of the music and movie industries.

The Justice Department would instigate civil suits under this law. There's only one greater waste of law enforcement manpower I can think of, and that's staking out bathrooms for toe tapping.


The Pirate Act enjoys strong support from large copyright holders. The Recording Industry Association of America said on Wednesday: "We commend Senators Leahy and Cornyn for their commitment and leadership to ensuring improved enforcement of IP protection."

And Dan Glickman, chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, said the Pirate Act will "strengthen the government's law enforcement resources to crack down on intellectual property theft."

Oddly, though, the Justice Department has been less than enthusiastic about the measure in the past. One top department official said a few years ago that the idea is "something that people should take with a grain of salt"--and while "the Justice Department is there to enforce the law, there's something to be said for those who help themselves."

[HoreTore]

Huh? Civil suits? Why shouldn't they push for criminal charges instead? Has the slogan changed from "Piracy is a crime" to "Piracy is legal, but I'd rather you didn't do it, and if you do it, I'll need money from you"?

[Xiahou]

It gets better too. The new bill essentially sets up a new FBI arm of the RIAA:
The new version of the Pirate Act, in addition to civil enforcement, also:

* Creates an "operational unit" of at least 10 FBI agents to investigate intellectual property offenses. It requires the Justice Department to assign a federal prosecutor to Hong Kong and Budapest, Hungary, "to assist in the coordination of the enforcement of intellectual property laws" and allocates $12 million per year.

* Awards $20 million per year in additional funding to the FBI and the Justice Department's criminal division to investigate computer crimes.

* Amends existing law dealing with criminal forfeiture. Says that "any property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part to commit or facilitate the commission" of certain intellectual property offenses is subject to forfeiture. Civil forfeiture is also included. This expands on a recent counterfeit goods-related law.
That's really outrageous. The senators who are sponsoring this bill should be thrown out of office- now. :no:

Incidentally, whenever a bill has a ridiculous acronym like "PIRATE" (Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation), you just know it's got to be a turd...

[discovery1]

WHO'S SPONSORING THIS BILL!?

[AntiochusIII]

"Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee [and] Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican,"...is what Lemur's link said.

RECALL! RECALL! (of course I know there's no Recall system on the Federal level. This is why we should have them!)

[Papewaio]

Heres a new bill for you: TURD ACT

The Union Recall Defence Act:
Allows a federal recall of any senator being found acting against the best interests of the people on behalf of a third party.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee [and] Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican,"...is what Lemur's link said.

RECALL! RECALL! (of course I know there's no Recall system on the Federal level. This is why we should have them!)

If we'd rescinded the 17th ammendment and gone back to our framer's original intent, THEN the state governments -- who we bloodly well CAN recall at need -- would be telling their representatives (the Senators) not to vote for this turkey.

Of course, Leahy hasn't met too many expansions of federal government purview and power that he wasn't willing to vote for. Cretin.

Please note, that last is a personal opinion and does not represent the views of Tosa Inu.

[Xiahou]

If we'd rescinded the 17th ammendment and gone back to our framer's original intent, THEN the state governments -- who we bloodly well CAN recall at need -- would be telling their representatives (the Senators) not to vote for this turkey.What a disaster the 17th was, eh? The federal government has exploded in size since its passage.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What a disaster the 17th was, eh? The federal government has exploded in size since its passage.

Absolutely. The Framers crafted a government where the key legislative power -- the purse (budget) was in the hands of legislators who HAD to go before the voters in no more than 2 more years and could not pass a budget item lasting longer than that. There was no recall vote, but they would face the music quickly.

The chain-break on demagougery was supposed to be the Senate -- selected by the State legislatures -- who as representatives of their States would have a vested interest (staying in office) in voting in a manner that did NOT make their own state's government irrelevant and would, therefore, cause them to vote against most things that were trendy at the moment. Senators used to consult with governors and state legislators -- the ones who actually live in their districts most of a year -- and they would listen.

Then came the 20th century and a document that had gone 100+ years with only 3 revisions (all following the ACW) acquired 4 ammendments in 8 years. ALL of which were to have profound national impact, all of which have served to increase the size, scope, and control of the Federal government -- a factor that was NOT true of the preceding 15 -- and 3 of which I would argue have been largely deleterious. All were crafted with the noblest of goals.....

16th = Income Tax. Huge tax tool to draw funds as needed. Sold, orginally, as a means of bilking the undeserving rich (Vanderbilt, Morgan, Carnegie et al.) After all, it was only 1% on the richest....suckers.

17th = Direct election of Senators. Seems noble, direct vote is democratic, right? We're supposed to be in a Republic of States, NOT a universal direct government. Unintended consequences anyone?

18th = Prohibition. You all know about Organized Crime as an unintended consequence. How about these: ATF becomes huge, FBI gets created, National government becomes involved in gun control, Federal police powers supercede those of the States...

19th = Women's Suffrage. This one grows government -- at least according to some sources -- but can't be dismissed as denying suffrage on the basis of internal plumbing is ludicrous prima facie. Given the ammendments recently crafted and voted by the guys, perhaps leaving the suffrage ONLY with the gals would have been better.

[Blodrast]

And the saga continues...

http://www.news.com/Democrats-Colleges-must-police-copyright%2C-or-else/2100-1028_3-6217943.html?tag=nefd.lede

I get all fuzzy when I see all these laws being pushed "for my protection and benefit" - and by the good, kind-hearted corporations, no less...


Democrats: Colleges must police copyright, or else
Top congressional Democrats put pressure on colleges and universities to stamp out peer-to-peer piracy or lose financial aid for all their students.
By Anne Broache and Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: November 9, 2007, 5:41 PM PST
Tell us what you think about this storyTalkBackE-mail this story to a friendE-mailView this story formatted for printingPrint Add to your del.icio.usdel.icio.us Digg this storyDigg this
Democrats: Colleges must police copyright, or else

New federal legislation says universities must agree to provide not just deterrents but also "alternatives" to peer-to-peer piracy, such as paying monthly subscription fees to the music industry for their students, on penalty of losing all financial aid for their students.

The U.S. House of Representatives bill (PDF), which was introduced late Friday by top Democratic politicians, could give the movie and music industries a new revenue stream by pressuring schools into signing up for monthly subscription services such as Ruckus and Napster. Ruckus is advertising-supported, and Napster charges a monthly fee per student.

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) applauded the proposal, which is embedded in a 747-page spending and financial aid bill. "We very much support the language in the bill, which requires universities to provide evidence that they have a plan for implementing a technology to address illegal file sharing," said Angela Martinez, a spokeswoman for the MPAA.

According to the bill, if universities did not agree to test "technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity," all of their students--even ones who don't own a computer--would lose federal financial aid.

The prospect of losing a combined total of nearly $100 billion a year in federal financial aid, coupled with the possibility of overzealous copyright-bots limiting the sharing of legitimate content, has alarmed university officials.

"Such an extraordinarily inappropriate and punitive outcome would result in all students on that campus losing their federal financial aid--including Pell grants and student loans that are essential to their ability to attend college, advance their education, and acquire the skills necessary to compete in the 21st-century economy," a letter from university officials to Congress written on Wednesday said. "Lower-income students, those most in need of federal financial aid, would be harmed most under the entertainment industry's proposal."

The letter was signed by the chancellor of the University of Maryland system, the president of Stanford University, the general counsel of Yale University, and the president of Penn State.

They stress that the "higher education community recognizes the seriousness of the problem of illegal peer-to-peer file sharing and has long been committed to working with the entertainment industry to find a workable solution to the problem." In addition, the letter says that colleges and universities are responsible for "only a small fraction of illegal file sharing."

The MPAA says the university presidents are overreacting. An MPAA representative sent CNET News.com a list of campuses that have begun filtering files transferred on their networks, including the University of Florida (Red Lambda technology); the University of Utah (network monitoring and Audible Magic); and Ohio's Wittenberg University (Audible Magic).

For each school taking such steps, the MPAA says, copyright complaints dramatically decreased, in some cases going from 50 a month to none.

(continued from previous page)

The MPAA's Martinez did warn that the consequences of violating the proposed rules would be stiff: "Because it is added to the current reporting requirements that universities already have through the Secretary of Education, it would have the same penalties for noncompliance as any of the others requirements under current law."

Neither the Recording Industry Association of America nor the Association of American Universities was available for comment on Friday.

Expanding on an earlier anti-P2P plan
The two Democratic politicians behind Friday's bill are Reps. George Miller from California and Ruben Hinojosa of Texas. Miller is chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee and Hinojosa is chairman of the higher education subcommittee.

They said in a press release that the legislation, called the College Opportunity and Affordability Act, or COAA, will be voted on by the full committee next week.

The peer-to-peer sections of COAA appear to be a revision of an amendment originally proposed over the summer by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to his chamber's sweeping higher education reauthorization bill.

Groups like the American Association of Universities and Educause attacked Reid's proposal at the time, saying it was incredibly worrisome because it would have yanked federal grants and loans from students who attend schools that don't do enough to prevent illegal file sharing.
Now on News.com
Microsoft puts new Windows on old PC Quick jailbreak for iPhone update Photos: Dissecting a hard drive Extra: I want my iTV

The old language over the summer required schools to develop "a plan for implementing a technology-based deterrent to prevent the illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property." The new language requires "a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property as well as a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity."

Reid's bill also would have required the Secretary of Education to devise a list of the 25 schools with the highest levels of illegal peer-to-peer file sharing, based on entertainment industry statistics. That's not in the new COAA legislation.

On the Senate side, after universities raised a fuss, the contentious amendment was eventually diluted to a requirement that higher education institutions merely advise their students, in writing, of the legal consequences of "unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material" and what steps the school was taking to combat such activities.

[AntiochusIII]

Oh now I'm angry. Somebody from Nevada please vote that bastard out of office. :shame:

The American government really sucks isn't it. When it was Republicans we were losing our human rights left and right to scare bills, now it's Democrats and guess what? All the same crap. More of this and they'll make a revolutionary anarchist out of me.

Glad to know where our priorities lie: Money for Hollywood before Higher Education. I hope colleges take a stand and raise a publicity disaster for all involved; MPAA, their lapdogs in the legislative, all of them.

Seamus: That's an interesting view of the 17th. Shows how ignorant I am in the topic of American history.

[Blodrast]

Oh now I'm angry. Somebody from Nevada please vote that bastard out of office. :shame:

The American government really sucks isn't it. When it was Republicans we were losing our human rights left and right to scare bills, now it's Democrats and guess what? All the same crap. More of this and they'll make a revolutionary anarchist out of me.

Glad to know where our priorities lie: Money for Hollywood before Higher Education. I hope colleges take a stand and raise a publicity disaster for all involved; MPAA, their lapdogs in the legislative, all of them.


What ? Our politicians are the best that money can buy !... :sweatdrop:
And what do we need so many damn students for, anyways ? They don't pay much in taxes, they don't have much of an income - so they suck as consumers, and staying too long in those colleges gets them all ... brainy, and, and, stuff! They're all a bunch of pirates anyway, sue them, the lot of them! :laugh4:
Oh, and take their scholarships, too, they're there to study, not to steal from the artists!

[CountArach]

Do we need this act? Yaaaaargh! :pirate2:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Way to go, democrat congress! This is the kind of legislative vision we need after years of GOP tepidness.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

Then came the 20th century and a document that had gone 100+ years with only 3 revisions (all following the ACW) acquired 4 ammendments in 8 years. ALL of which were to have profound national impact, all of which have served to increase the size, scope, and control of the Federal government -- a factor that was NOT true of the preceding 15 -- and 3 of which I would argue have been largely deleterious. All were crafted with the noblest of goals.....Brilliant amendments!

States rights became obsolote when America developed railroads and the telegraph. More influence for the federal government was the way America progressed further, and is the way forward still.

:knight:

Edit: uh, though the way that is the topic of this thread is a particular bad example...

[Blodrast]

It's getting there...

http://www.news.com/Anti-P2P-college-bill-advances-in-House/2100-1028_3-6218834.html?tag=nefd.top


Anti-P2P college bill advances in House
Measure would require schools receiving financial aid to devise "deterrents" to illegal file sharing, but it's unclear what will happen if they don't.
By Anne Broache
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: November 15, 2007, 2:28 PM PST
Tell us what you think about this storyTalkBackE-mail this story to a friendE-mailView this story formatted for printingPrint Add to your del.icio.usdel.icio.us Digg this storyDigg this
Anti-P2P college bill advances in House

WASHINGTON--The U.S. House of Representatives has taken a step toward approving a Hollywood-backed spending bill requiring universities to consider offering "alternatives" and "technology-based deterrents" to illegal peer-to-peer file sharing.

In the House Education and Labor Committee's mammoth College Opportunity and Affordability Act (PDF) lies a tiny section, which dictates universities that participate in federal financial aid programs "shall" devise plans for "alternative" offerings to unlawful downloading, such as subscription-based services, or "technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity." The committee unanimously approved the bill Thursday.

Supporters and opponents of the proposal disagree, however, on what the penalty would be for failure to comply with the new rules. The proposed requirements would be added to a section of existing federal law dealing with federal financial aid.

Some university representatives and fair-use advocates worry that schools run the risk of losing aid for their students if they fail to come up with the required plans.

"The language in the bill appears to be clear that failure to carry out the mandates would make an institution ineligible for participation in at least some part of Title IV (which deals with federal financial aid programs)," Steven Worona, director of policy and networking programs for the group Educause, said in a telephone interview Thursday.

Worona acknowledged that "there does appear to be a great deal of confusion with respect to what penalties would be involved in not carrying out the mandates in this bill." Still, Educause, which represents college and university network operators, continues to "strongly oppose these mandates," he said.

House committee aides respond that failure to craft those antipiracy plans would not imperil financial aid awards. A fact sheet distributed by the committee this week attempts to dispel "myths" that it argues are being circulated by "supporters of intellectual property theft."
"Lower-income students, those most in need of federal financial aid, would be harmed most under the entertainment industry's proposal."
--Association of American Universities

"The provisions do ask colleges, to the extent practicable, to develop plans for offering students alternative legal ways to file share, as well as plans to prevent file sharing, but this would not be included in the financial aid program participation agreements colleges enter into with the U.S. Department of Education," committee spokeswoman Rachel Racusen told CNET News.com in an e-mail after Thursday's vote. "Contrary to what critics are saying, these provisions would not put students or colleges at risk for losing financial aid."

Nor would the bill strip away financial aid if schools fail to stop piracy on their campuses, to sign up for "legal" subscription media services like Ruckus.com and Napster for their student body, to report student violations, or to implement any specific antipiracy policies, Racusen said.

The only piracy-related information that schools would have to provide to their students and employees in conjunction with their financial aid agreements is a description of "the policies and procedures related to the illegal downloading and distribution of copyrighted materials," Racusen said.

If institutions fail to heed the new rules, it would be up to the Department of Education to decide the consequences, a committee aide said. For related reporting requirements, such as school safety plans, that has typically involved simply keeping after universities to provide the mandated information, the aide added.

That reporting requirement was also the core of an amendment offered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and approved this summer as part of his chamber's counterpart higher education bill. University representatives have called that provision a "reasonable compromise."

But in an earlier draft of that amendment, Reid also wanted to require the Secretary of Education to devise a list of the 25 schools with the highest levels of illegal peer-to-peer file sharing, based on entertainment industry statistics. For those 25 institutions, their financial aid would have been conditioned on devising "a plan for implementing a technology-based deterrent to prevent the illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property," according to university groups that opposed the measure.

That means the House provision, by expanding that requirement to all schools, not just the 25 on the watch-list, is seemingly broader than the original Senate amendment, according to Educause's Worona. After an outcry from universities, Reid ultimately scrapped that idea.

Opponents question fairness, privacy issues
The Association of American Universities wrote a letter to House committee leaders last week urging them not to revive that idea in their own forthcoming higher education bill. The letter was signed by the chancellor of the University of Maryland system, the president of Stanford University, the general counsel of Yale University, and the president of Pennsylvania State University.

"Such an extraordinarily inappropriate and punitive outcome would result in all students on that campus losing their federal financial aid--including Pell grants and student loans that are essential to their ability to attend college, advance their education, and acquire the skills necessary to compete in the 21st-century economy," they wrote last week. "Lower-income students, those most in need of federal financial aid, would be harmed most under the entertainment industry's proposal."

An AAU spokesman said Thursday that his organization still has concerns about the final provision in the approved House bill but declined to elaborate, indicating the group is prioritizing other areas of the bill that cause schools greater heartburn.

Other opponents of the antipiracy provisions argue that merely requiring such a plan from universities at all, regardless of the penalties involved, is misguided. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, for instance, argued that pressuring schools to strike deals with content providers could indirectly raise the cost of students' tuition, as schools will inevitably pass the costs of legal download services on to students in some fashion.
Now on News.com
Amazon to debut Kindle e-book reader Red Hat reworks server messaging What kids learn in virtual worlds Extra: Cell phones you can't have

Another concern from opponents is the possibility of privacy invasions brought on by the technology-based deterrents schools would be encouraged--albeit not explicitly required--to adopt. In addition to the "plan" requirement, one section of the bill would offer voluntary grants over the next five years for schools, in partnership with outside organizations, to use toward efforts to concoct effective, reasonably priced antipiracy technology tools. Opponents argue those tools amount to spying on students' network activities.

Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a group that advocates for preservation of fair-use rights, said she doesn't buy the committee's arguments that no penalties will arise if universities don't develop antipiracy plans.

"If it had no teeth, (the Motion Picture Association of America) would be criticizing it," she said in a telephone interview.

The MPAA, for its part, has heartily endorsed the provisions, with CEO Dan Glickman saying in a statement upon the bill's introduction: "We are pleased to see that Congress is taking this step to help keep our economy strong by protecting copyrighted material on college campuses."

[HoreTore]

What ? Our politicians are the best that money can buy !... :sweatdrop:

I think the problem is that money did buy them...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Honest politicians -- as in they STAY bought -- are getting harder and harder to come by.

Our current crop tend toward a more "fee-for-service" arrangement, as do prostitutes.

Of course, I am told that prostitutes will actually pretend to like you while they $&#* you and take your money, whereas politicians will....

[Goofball]

It gets better too. The new bill essentially sets up a new FBI arm of the RIAA:
That's really outrageous. The senators who are sponsoring this bill should be thrown out of office- now. :no:

Incidentally, whenever a bill has a ridiculous acronym like "PIRATE" (Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation), you just know it's got to be a turd...

Agreed on both points.

As far as names go, I'm not sure which one is worse, this one, or the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.

They're both turds...

Anybody else aware of any other real stinkers out there with "catchy" names? I think we should have a contest...

[Xiahou]

Agreed on both points.

As far as names go, I'm not sure which one is worse, this one, or the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.

They're both turds...

Anybody else aware of any other real stinkers out there with "catchy" names? I think we should have a contest...
I think that the worst thing about the USA PATRIOT Act, other than the acronym, is that no one seems to know what all is in it. I doubt even the Congressmen who passed it know....