As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

White House Official Proposes draconian New Copyright Laws; Wiretaps ahoy!

LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
edited March 2011 in Debate and/or Discourse
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20043421-281.html
The White House today proposed sweeping revisions to U.S. copyright law, including making "illegal streaming" of audio or video a federal felony and allowing FBI agents to wiretap suspected infringers.

In a 20-page white paper (PDF), the Obama administration called on the U.S. Congress to fix "deficiencies that could hinder enforcement" of intellectual property laws.

The report was prepared by Victoria Espinel, the first Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator who received Senate confirmation in December 2009, and represents a broad tightening of many forms of intellectual property law including ones that deal with counterfeit pharmaceuticals and overseas royalties for copyright holders. (See CNET's report last month previewing today's white paper.)

Some of the highlights:
  • The White House is concerned that "illegal streaming of content" may not be covered by criminal law, saying "questions have arisen about whether streaming constitutes the distribution of copyrighted works." To resolve that ambiguity, it wants a new law to "clarify that infringement by streaming, or by means of other similar new technology, is a felony in appropriate circumstances."
  • Under federal law, wiretaps may only be conducted in investigations of serious crimes, a list that was expanded by the 2001 Patriot Act to include offenses such as material support of terrorism and use of weapons of mass destruction. The administration is proposing to add copyright and trademark infringement, arguing that move "would assist U.S. law enforcement agencies to effectively investigate those offenses."
  • Under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it's generally illegal to distribute hardware or software--such as the DVD-decoding software Handbrake available from a server in France--that can "circumvent" copy protection technology. The administration is proposing that if Homeland Security seizes circumvention devices, it be permitted to "inform rightholders," "provide samples of such devices," and assist "them in bringing civil actions."
The term "fair use" does not appear anywhere in the report. But it does mention Web sites like The Pirate Bay, which is hosted in Sweden, when warning that "foreign-based and foreign-controlled Web sites and Web services raise particular concerns for U.S. enforcement efforts." (See previous coverage of a congressional hearing on overseas sites.)

The usual copyright hawks, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, applauded the paper, which grew out of a so-called joint strategic plan that Vice President Biden and Espinel announced in June 2010.

Rob Calia, a senior director at the Chamber's Global Intellectual Property Center, said we "strongly support the white paper's call for Congress to clarify that criminal copyright infringement through unauthorized streaming, is a felony. We know both the House and Senate are looking at this issue and encourage them to work closely with the administration and other stakeholders to combat this growing threat."
In October 2008, President Bush signed into law the so-called Pro IP ACT, which created Espinel's position and increased penalties for infringement, after expressing its opposition to an earlier version.

Unless legislative proposals--like one nearly a decade ago implanting strict copy controls in digital devices--go too far, digital copyright tends not to be a particularly partisan topic. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, near-universally disliked by programmers and engineers for its anti-circumvention section, was approved unanimously in the U.S. Senate.

At the same time, Democratic politicians tend to be a bit more enthusiastic about the topic. Biden was a close Senate ally of copyright holders, and President Obama picked top copyright industry lawyers for Justice Department posts. Last year, Biden warned that "piracy is theft."
No less than 78 percent of political contributions from Hollywood went to Democrats in 2008, which is broadly consistent with the trend for the last two decades, according to OpenSecrets.org.

Now, I'm not one to say that Intellectual Property should be some kind of anarchist free-for-all where there should be no protections for content producers, but in all honesty, these provisions seem like their on the other end of the spectrum, one that seems downright unfair to the average citizen.

The ambiguity of the proposed rule changes is just one concern of mine. What exactly constitutes "streaming" in this case? Will John Doe be prosecuted for a felony because he watched a segment of Random Summer Blockbuster from Three Years Ago that Jane Doe uploaded to Youtube? Will Jane Doe now be at risk of being prosecuted and the subject of a wiretap? Or is this merely directed at the various websites around the net that exist to provide unauthorized streams of movies and TV Shows?

Related to this, we already see attacks on sites like YouTube from content providers based on the fact that they're host to unauthorized uploads of copyrighted content. Despite the fact that the courts have found in favor of YouTube and Google in the past, more companies still try to take them to court over these uploads. Now, would they be able to file criminal charges on top of those civil charges? Should they be able to.

Ever since the DMCA, we've seen an increase in power being shifted further and further away from the people to share their media and use property they've bought as they see fit*; I can't help but think this is another sign that corporations in America are slowly trying to make the law favor themselves over the rights and protections held in place for the average citizen. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but honestly, the fact that rule changes like this are being proposed when we already have companies suing poor grandmothers for thousands of dollars for potentially sharing a few MP3s scares the hell out of me. Is there honestly any reason that this needs to be a felony or is a such a severe crime that we need to resort to wiretaps?

*Though recent rulings have been able to restore some power to consumers, such as a recent ruling regarding jailbreaking one's cellphone/PDA

waNkm4k.jpg?1
Lanz on
«1

Posts

  • Options
    EtericEteric Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Hopefully this doesn't go through. It's fucking retarded.

    Eteric on
    eatfranks5.png
  • Options
    PataPata Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    I swear if I ever become dicator I am destroying the DMCA.

    Pata on
    SRWWSig.pngEpisode 5: Mecha-World, Mecha-nisim, Mecha-beasts
  • Options
    ATIRageATIRage Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    You know, I wrote a paper for my law school journal explaining why the DMCA is unconstitutional as it relates to Limited Times for copyright protection. This kind of step to enforce copyright seems ridiculous and overreaching, felonizing copyright infringement? jeesus. Despite the DMCA's failures, at worst you only get civil penalties. I could see the grandma who downloads some bible music getting thrown in the pokey because of proposals like this

    Thankfully it is just a white paper and it likely won't go anywhere.

    ATIRage on
  • Options
    PataPata Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    ATIRage wrote: »
    You know, I wrote a paper for my law school journal explaining why the DMCA is unconstitutional as it relates to Limited Times for copyright protection.

    Can you summarize this? Sounds interesting.

    Pata on
    SRWWSig.pngEpisode 5: Mecha-World, Mecha-nisim, Mecha-beasts
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited March 2011
    I see the logic in updating copyright laws to recognize streaming technology if they currently allow streaming as some sort of loophole around copyright law.

    That's about the only nice thing I have to say about this law, though. Enabling additional capacity for wiretapping is really disappointing. I am really hard pressed to believe that keeping some teenager from watching Michael Bay Atrocity #36 for free warrants spying on people.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    InvisibleInvisible Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    I'm against making it a federal crime or really a crime at all. I'm very much against piracy, but it should only be a civil matter.

    There's absolutely no reason for the FBI or the federal government to be involved in it. This clearly just another example of the entertainment lobby throwing its money around.

    Invisible on
  • Options
    ATIRageATIRage Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Pata: Basically my argument was this:
    1. constitution clearly says that copyrights shall exist for limited times.
    2.The DMCA gives individuals the ability to protect their ideas with technological copyright protections (The DMCA specifically breaks these measures into two kinds of protections, access denial, and copy prevention)
    3. Once a copyright expires, the protection method has to go away because the work enters the public domain(in old technology terms, if you had a movie from 1920, copying it today would be acceptable and the copyright protection [suit in court] could not be pursued)
    4. Works protected by digital protection schemes never enter the public domain. (Because of the nature of a technological copyright protection measure, the technology used to protect the copyright never stops protecting the copyright, think of it as a dvd that forever prevents you from copying the dvd).
    5. The because the DMCA doesn't force companies to ensure that their technological measures self terminate, the protection system lasts in perpetuity forever preventing the work from entering the public domain.
    6. This violates the limited times provision of the constitution
    7. Therefore the DMCA (which criminalizes circumventing any technological measure absenta few limitations) is unconstitutional on these limited grounds.

    Not a resounding argument and i didn't convince anyone at school, but the constitution is the constitution. Have to follow it regardless of its nagging necessities.

    ATIRage on
  • Options
    Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    See, this is why the slippery slope argument isn't in all cases a fallacy. It took less than 10 years for us to go from wiretapping in cases of suspected terrorism and threats to national security to wiretapping for the rough equivalent of shoplifting.

    Jealous Deva on
  • Options
    ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Wiretaps? Really? I hate this. All of it.

    They're clarifying that 'streaming' counts as distribution. Great, that clears everything up if someone would just explain what the hell "streaming" means in this context. Receiving packets (watching netflix)? Sending packets (being netflix)? Sending data to someone is obviously distribution, so I object to that interpretation of 'streaming,' as that would mean this was written by idiots. Receiving data is obviously not distribution, so I also object to that interpretation of 'streaming,' as that would suggest that this was written by idiots.
    The White House is concerned that "illegal streaming of content" may not be covered by criminal law

    "Illegal" things are not illegal!? Quick, to the legislatobile!

    It made me chuckle, but I'm guessing that's just a poor paraphrasing.

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • Options
    surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Just... dumb

    surrealitycheck on
    obF2Wuw.png
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Invisible wrote: »
    I'm against making it a federal crime or really a crime at all. I'm very much against piracy, but it should only be a civil matter.

    There's absolutely no reason for the FBI or the federal government to be involved in it. This clearly just another example of the entertainment lobby throwing its money around.

    On a side note, copyright infringement is already a crime. A federal felony, actually. It's just that there's a minimum threshold you have to meet before the law applies. Either, IIRC:

    a) $1,000 in works within a 180 day period or
    b) Any work in exchange for anything of value, including other works

    No idea if the recent issues with streaming fit in there. But point being, copyright infringement is already a crime, and I've found a lot of people don't know that. Including myself, until recently. I mean, there's that whole FBI Warning thing, but I thought that only applied to...well, other kinds of infringement. Or something.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    ED!ED! Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    "Illegal" things are not illegal!? Quick, to the legislatobile!

    It made me chuckle, but I'm guessing that's just a poor paraphrasing.

    Why would a legal distribution of copyrighted material (Netflix) be illegal and cause for confusion?

    ED! on
    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    ED! wrote: »
    "Illegal" things are not illegal!? Quick, to the legislatobile!

    It made me chuckle, but I'm guessing that's just a poor paraphrasing.

    Why would a legal distribution of copyrighted material (Netflix) be illegal and cause for confusion?

    By "streaming" I'm guessing they're talking about the new crop of unauthorized streaming video sites popping up online. Don't know much about them, just heard a little. But apparently there's some concern they may not be covered by current law? Huh.

    And this isn't exactly new. That's exactly what happened last time, when they made non-profit copyright infringement a felony (as mentioned). They had a case where a guy got off without charges, because he wasn't actually selling anything.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    ED! wrote: »
    "Illegal" things are not illegal!? Quick, to the legislatobile!

    It made me chuckle, but I'm guessing that's just a poor paraphrasing.

    Why would a legal distribution of copyrighted material (Netflix) be illegal and cause for confusion?

    I'm afraid I don't understand the question. I do understand that you're quoting my reaction to a quote which I interpreted as someone essentially fretting over whether "illegal behavior" was against the law; and then just making this law up to be sure.

    I just don't know how it connects to what you're asking. Why is a raven like a writing desk? I don't know.

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • Options
    PataPata Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    mcdermott wrote: »
    b) Any work in exchange for anything of value, including other works

    This means that about half of all fanartists on the internet are felons.

    Pata on
    SRWWSig.pngEpisode 5: Mecha-World, Mecha-nisim, Mecha-beasts
  • Options
    ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Copyright infringement shouldn't be criminal.

    Criminalizing it is ludicrous.

    Illegal and Criminal are not the same: Copyrights are covered by civil law and it is idiotic to consider making it otherwise

    Elldren on
    fuck gendered marketing
  • Options
    ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Elldren wrote: »
    Copyright infringement shouldn't criminal.

    Criminalizing it is ludicrous.

    Illegal and Criminal are not the same: Copyrights are covered by civil law and it is idiotic to consider making it otherwise

    It says 'in appropriate circumstances.'

    There are circumstances where infringement becomes a felony; I'd assumed they were just adding 'streaming' as a method of distribution under those existing circumstances, and not making 'streaming' a new felony circumstance of it's own.

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • Options
    ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Elldren wrote: »
    Copyright infringement shouldn't criminal.

    Criminalizing it is ludicrous.

    Illegal and Criminal are not the same: Copyrights are covered by civil law and it is idiotic to consider making it otherwise

    It says 'in appropriate circumstances.'

    There are circumstances where infringement becomes a felony; I'd assumed they were just adding 'streaming' as a method of distribution under those existing circumstances, and not making 'streaming' a new felony circumstance of it's own.

    I'm saying there really shouldn't be.

    Elldren on
    fuck gendered marketing
  • Options
    ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Elldren wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    Copyright infringement shouldn't criminal.

    Criminalizing it is ludicrous.

    Illegal and Criminal are not the same: Copyrights are covered by civil law and it is idiotic to consider making it otherwise

    It says 'in appropriate circumstances.'

    There are circumstances where infringement becomes a felony; I'd assumed they were just adding 'streaming' as a method of distribution under those existing circumstances, and not making 'streaming' a new felony circumstance of it's own.

    I'm saying there really shouldn't be.

    Even in the case of a large scale bootlegging operation? I think the copyright holders have been given several cookies too many, and an equal tally in glasses of milk; but I can agree that mass producing and selling protected works for a profit should be illegal.

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • Options
    ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Elldren wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    Copyright infringement shouldn't criminal.

    Criminalizing it is ludicrous.

    Illegal and Criminal are not the same: Copyrights are covered by civil law and it is idiotic to consider making it otherwise

    It says 'in appropriate circumstances.'

    There are circumstances where infringement becomes a felony; I'd assumed they were just adding 'streaming' as a method of distribution under those existing circumstances, and not making 'streaming' a new felony circumstance of it's own.

    I'm saying there really shouldn't be.

    Even in the case of a large scale bootlegging operation? I think the copyright holders have been given several cookies too many, and an equal tally in glasses of milk; but I can agree that mass producing and selling protected works for a profit should be illegal.

    Certainly, but I will have to disagree with you in thinking it should be criminal.

    Elldren on
    fuck gendered marketing
  • Options
    dojangodojango Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Elldren wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    Copyright infringement shouldn't criminal.

    Criminalizing it is ludicrous.

    Illegal and Criminal are not the same: Copyrights are covered by civil law and it is idiotic to consider making it otherwise

    It says 'in appropriate circumstances.'

    There are circumstances where infringement becomes a felony; I'd assumed they were just adding 'streaming' as a method of distribution under those existing circumstances, and not making 'streaming' a new felony circumstance of it's own.

    I'm saying there really shouldn't be.

    Even in the case of a large scale bootlegging operation? I think the copyright holders have been given several cookies too many, and an equal tally in glasses of milk; but I can agree that mass producing and selling protected works for a profit should be illegal.

    it already is illegal. Now they just want to make it criminal as well. And give the government some extra powers to make sure nobody's doing it. Also to keep an eye on the non-mass producing and consumption of protected works.

    It is silly. Let the copyright holders enforce it in civil court. Many other illegal activities can only be enforced through the civil process.

    dojango on
  • Options
    SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    This sounds like it will be a great way for the government to get an excuse to wiretap pretty much anyone they want to, since there are a lot of areas where copyright on the internet could be dubious or unclear enough that it allows them to get their foot in the door even if there is no immediately apparent wrongdoing.

    With all the systemic fraud going around, it seems rather absurd that this is what they choose to go out of their way to felonize.

    Savant on
  • Options
    ClipseClipse Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Trying to actually enforce this would be a clusterfuck that would make the War On Drugs look tame by comparison.

    Clipse on
  • Options
    ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    dojango wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    Copyright infringement shouldn't criminal.

    Criminalizing it is ludicrous.

    Illegal and Criminal are not the same: Copyrights are covered by civil law and it is idiotic to consider making it otherwise

    It says 'in appropriate circumstances.'

    There are circumstances where infringement becomes a felony; I'd assumed they were just adding 'streaming' as a method of distribution under those existing circumstances, and not making 'streaming' a new felony circumstance of it's own.

    I'm saying there really shouldn't be.

    Even in the case of a large scale bootlegging operation? I think the copyright holders have been given several cookies too many, and an equal tally in glasses of milk; but I can agree that mass producing and selling protected works for a profit should be illegal.

    it already is illegal. Now they just want to make it criminal as well. And give the government some extra powers to make sure nobody's doing it. Also to keep an eye on the non-mass producing and consumption of protected works.

    It is silly. Let the copyright holders enforce it in civil court. Many other illegal activities can only be enforced through the civil process.

    I agree.

    However, it is already criminal in the situation I described. I'm just asking Elldren if they think it shouldn't be.

    Some people don't consider that scenario 'infringing,' but full on piracy, and would agree it should be a proper crime. Some people think that scenario should not be a crime. Just curious which opinion Elldren held.

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • Options
    Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    So, won't people just do the exact same thing in countries that won't respond to US extradition? This is a GLOBAL problem and all doing this on an individual nation level does is create new ways to get people arrested and shift where people will be doing this kind of activity. Good god our prison system is already overcrowded beyond all reason, we should be figuring out ways to not put people in jail not new ways to do so.

    At least it will ensure that small time operators have too much of an opportunity cost to get into this so these kind of operations become larger and more organized and by people who don't care about being arrested. That way they can also go about murdering each other (and random bystanders) and creating a bunch more excuses for criminal defense.

    Oh hey, when you create expectations for wealth (of information) without people having the opportunities to get them some people turn to stealing it? So lets arrest those people instead of finding ways to actually fix the problem.

    Void Slayer on
    He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I see the logic in updating copyright laws to recognize streaming technology if they currently allow streaming as some sort of loophole around copyright law.

    That's about the only nice thing I have to say about this law, though. Enabling additional capacity for wiretapping is really disappointing. I am really hard pressed to believe that keeping some teenager from watching Michael Bay Atrocity #36 for free warrants spying on people.

    I pretty much agree with everything you said here.

    The streaming thing makes sense to me as it just looks like the law trying to keep up with technology.

    The rest seems like insanity. Wiretapping to catch people streaming copyrighted material??? Seriously??!?!?

    I can understand the desire to clamp down on this kind of behavior, but I think this is going a step to far and opens up far too many avenues for abuse.

    shryke on
  • Options
    LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    ATIRage wrote: »
    You know, I wrote a paper for my law school journal explaining why the DMCA is unconstitutional as it relates to Limited Times for copyright protection. This kind of step to enforce copyright seems ridiculous and overreaching, felonizing copyright infringement? jeesus. Despite the DMCA's failures, at worst you only get civil penalties. I could see the grandma who downloads some bible music getting thrown in the pokey because of proposals like this

    Thankfully it is just a white paper and it likely won't go anywhere.

    Just out of curiosity, how so? I mean, I'm hoping that you're right here, but I'm not sure of the details of how things like white papers work

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Options
    Magus`Magus` The fun has been DOUBLED! Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Lanz wrote: »
    ATIRage wrote: »
    You know, I wrote a paper for my law school journal explaining why the DMCA is unconstitutional as it relates to Limited Times for copyright protection. This kind of step to enforce copyright seems ridiculous and overreaching, felonizing copyright infringement? jeesus. Despite the DMCA's failures, at worst you only get civil penalties. I could see the grandma who downloads some bible music getting thrown in the pokey because of proposals like this

    Thankfully it is just a white paper and it likely won't go anywhere.

    Just out of curiosity, how so? I mean, I'm hoping that you're right here, but I'm not sure of the details of how things like white papers work

    Similar to yellow cake, I'd imagine.

    Magus` on
  • Options
    dojangodojango Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Lanz wrote: »
    ATIRage wrote: »
    You know, I wrote a paper for my law school journal explaining why the DMCA is unconstitutional as it relates to Limited Times for copyright protection. This kind of step to enforce copyright seems ridiculous and overreaching, felonizing copyright infringement? jeesus. Despite the DMCA's failures, at worst you only get civil penalties. I could see the grandma who downloads some bible music getting thrown in the pokey because of proposals like this

    Thankfully it is just a white paper and it likely won't go anywhere.

    Just out of curiosity, how so? I mean, I'm hoping that you're right here, but I'm not sure of the details of how things like white papers work

    Mid-level flunkies issue a proposal like this, and the pollsters see what the reaction is. If it is overwhelmingly negative, then official statement is released castigating the mid-level official. If it's positive, a law is drawn up and introduced into Congress.

    dojango on
  • Options
    ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Lanz wrote: »
    ATIRage wrote: »
    You know, I wrote a paper for my law school journal explaining why the DMCA is unconstitutional as it relates to Limited Times for copyright protection. This kind of step to enforce copyright seems ridiculous and overreaching, felonizing copyright infringement? jeesus. Despite the DMCA's failures, at worst you only get civil penalties. I could see the grandma who downloads some bible music getting thrown in the pokey because of proposals like this

    Thankfully it is just a white paper and it likely won't go anywhere.

    Just out of curiosity, how so? I mean, I'm hoping that you're right here, but I'm not sure of the details of how things like white papers work

    White paper is just fancy talk for "essay," it has no official weight.

    Essentially, all this means is that someone in the executive branch wrote an essay on on the current copyright situation, and filled it with terrible ideas.

    And that someone may or may not have worked at one of the RIAA's law firms before being appointed to a position Justice Department. I say this because Obama appointed five such persons, and I've been expecting something like this ever since.

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Hey, while we're at it, let's go ahead and make a bunch of other things allow monitoring of citizens!

    If somebody gets into a car accident and it's their fault, they should submit to surveillance. After all, they may be running a car accident ring out of their home.

    It's perfectly reasonable to set up cameras in the home of someone who defaults on a loan. I mean, what are they doing instead of paying off their loan? It would be a good idea to keep a sharp eye on their front door so we can see what purchases they are bringing in instead of paying their bills.

    Heck, sodomy laws aren't around anymore thanks to Lawrence v. Texas, but if they were this seems like it would be an excellent way to find out where all the gays are and make them pay for their homosexual ways! How unfortunate we weren't this forward-thinking prior to 2003.

    God this thing sucks. What, precisely, is the reasoning that violation of security in one's home and person in this way is reasonable and not subject to the 4th Amendment?

    Man, where the Patriot Act went wrong was in not going too far enough. Fuck the guy who typed all this up, sat back in his chair and thought, "Genius. This is what the world wants, what the world deserves."

    joshofalltrades on
  • Options
    OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Lanz wrote: »
    [Now, I'm not one to say that Intellectual Property should be some kind of anarchist free-for-all where there should be no protections for content producers...

    Oh. Hey. How you doin'? ;-)

    I'm sure NIN's final tour will be playing to empty seats this summer, with their failure of a recent business model.

    Octoparrot on
  • Options
    ATIRageATIRage Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    White papers are written by any number of individuals within the Executive branch. They aren't necessarily flunkies, and sometimes they are written by top level advisors in an administration. However, these papers generally are test balloons. My understanding is that white papers are designed to generate discussion on the topic or to see what arguments exist that are opposed to the premise of the whitepaper.

    Thus, just because the Administration has issued this whitepaper does not mean it is where the administration actually is in terms of actual position.

    ATIRage on
  • Options
    SigtyrSigtyr Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Hey, while we're at it, let's go ahead and make a bunch of other things allow monitoring of citizens!

    If somebody gets into a car accident and it's their fault, they should submit to surveillance. After all, they may be running a car accident ring out of their home.

    It's perfectly reasonable to set up cameras in the home of someone who defaults on a loan. I mean, what are they doing instead of paying off their loan? It would be a good idea to keep a sharp eye on their front door so we can see what purchases they are bringing in instead of paying their bills.

    Heck, sodomy laws aren't around anymore thanks to Lawrence v. Texas, but if they were this seems like it would be an excellent way to find out where all the gays are and make them pay for their homosexual ways! How unfortunate we weren't this forward-thinking prior to 2003.

    God this thing sucks. What, precisely, is the reasoning that violation of security in one's home and person in this way is reasonable and not subject to the 4th Amendment?

    Man, where the Patriot Act went wrong was in not going too far enough. Fuck the guy who typed all this up, sat back in his chair and thought, "Genius. This is what the world wants, what the world deserves."

    That's because if someone wants to keep their right to privacy, they've clearly got something to hide.

    Duh.

    Sigtyr on
  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited March 2011
    ATIRage wrote: »
    White papers are written by any number of individuals within the Executive branch. They aren't necessarily flunkies, and sometimes they are written by top level advisors in an administration. However, these papers generally are test balloons. My understanding is that white papers are designed to generate discussion on the topic or to see what arguments exist that are opposed to the premise of the whitepaper.

    Thus, just because the Administration has issued this whitepaper does not mean it is where the administration actually is in terms of actual position.

    So basically they are a new member's first thread in D&D

    joshofalltrades on
  • Options
    ATIRageATIRage Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Ha! an apt analogy. It is also important to note that the White House doesn't get to make laws, so it can issue as many white papers as it wants. Congress has to create the law, and in our current climate, it is not likely that copyright law is going to rise about the other, much more important, issues facing the nation.

    ATIRage on
  • Options
    oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    ATIRage wrote: »
    Pata: Basically my argument was this:
    1. constitution clearly says that copyrights shall exist for limited times.
    2.The DMCA gives individuals the ability to protect their ideas with technological copyright protections (The DMCA specifically breaks these measures into two kinds of protections, access denial, and copy prevention)
    3. Once a copyright expires, the protection method has to go away because the work enters the public domain(in old technology terms, if you had a movie from 1920, copying it today would be acceptable and the copyright protection [suit in court] could not be pursued)
    4. Works protected by digital protection schemes never enter the public domain. (Because of the nature of a technological copyright protection measure, the technology used to protect the copyright never stops protecting the copyright, think of it as a dvd that forever prevents you from copying the dvd).
    5. The because the DMCA doesn't force companies to ensure that their technological measures self terminate, the protection system lasts in perpetuity forever preventing the work from entering the public domain.
    6. This violates the limited times provision of the constitution
    7. Therefore the DMCA (which criminalizes circumventing any technological measure absenta few limitations) is unconstitutional on these limited grounds.

    Not a resounding argument and i didn't convince anyone at school, but the constitution is the constitution. Have to follow it regardless of its nagging necessities.

    I've heard similar arguments before. The counter is that DRM can legally be circumvented after the work falls into the public domain. The onus is not on the publisher to make public domain works easier to copy or even to make them available to the public.

    oldsak on
  • Options
    ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    oldsak wrote: »
    ATIRage wrote: »
    Pata: Basically my argument was this:
    1. constitution clearly says that copyrights shall exist for limited times.
    2.The DMCA gives individuals the ability to protect their ideas with technological copyright protections (The DMCA specifically breaks these measures into two kinds of protections, access denial, and copy prevention)
    3. Once a copyright expires, the protection method has to go away because the work enters the public domain(in old technology terms, if you had a movie from 1920, copying it today would be acceptable and the copyright protection [suit in court] could not be pursued)
    4. Works protected by digital protection schemes never enter the public domain. (Because of the nature of a technological copyright protection measure, the technology used to protect the copyright never stops protecting the copyright, think of it as a dvd that forever prevents you from copying the dvd).
    5. The because the DMCA doesn't force companies to ensure that their technological measures self terminate, the protection system lasts in perpetuity forever preventing the work from entering the public domain.
    6. This violates the limited times provision of the constitution
    7. Therefore the DMCA (which criminalizes circumventing any technological measure absenta few limitations) is unconstitutional on these limited grounds.

    Not a resounding argument and i didn't convince anyone at school, but the constitution is the constitution. Have to follow it regardless of its nagging necessities.

    I've heard similar arguments before. The counter is that DRM can legally be circumvented after the work falls into the public domain. The onus is not on the publisher to make public domain works easier to copy or even to make them available to the public.

    Legally circumvented, how? Isn't the distribution of any DRM circumvention methods, or tools, illegal under the DMCA?

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    ATIRage wrote: »
    Ha! an apt analogy. It is also important to note that the White House doesn't get to make laws, so it can issue as many white papers as it wants. Congress has to create the law, and in our current climate, it is not likely that copyright law is going to rise about the other, much more important, issues facing the nation.

    hahaha.

    Yeah, I wouldn't bet on that one.

    Also re public domain: presumably breaking the DRM on public domain works would be legal activity. However I would argue that content produces DO have the obligation to make their works accessible once they enter the public domain. That's kind of the trade off they get for copyright.

    It should be a requirement for anyone claiming they hold a copyright to have an original of the IP in question. For software, that should include everything, not just the installer. You lose the original? You're negligent in your end of the bargain, and the copies go public domain.

    Phoenix-D on
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Man, I'm heavily invested in two industries that have a big freaking problem with piracy (games and books) and I still can't believe anyone short of Disney or SONY would even suggest such a horrible overstepping of bounds. Digital theft is a significant issue but privacy is vital to the survival of democracy, and is also quite vital to a number of legitimate artists and writers.

    Incenjucar on
Sign In or Register to comment.