It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House passes hr 4279 "Pro-IP Act" Gives govt right to seize your PC if suspected of IP violation

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


As far as radio is concerned, the right holders (whether it is the artist or the record label) get a royalty when songs are played on the radio. It is not as if radio stations are getting away with piracy.

Second, while there are more serious crimes than "sharing" music, you are nevertheless taking somebody else's property when you "share" music. You would not like it if I came over to your house and "shared" your living room, went into your garage and "shared" your car for the weekend, and then went into your kitchen and "shared" your food. Similarly people in the entertainment industry are reasonably peaved when you "share" music or movie files.

All I have to say is that if you want to have easy access to quality entertainment, you should support the entertainment industry by legally obtaining music and movies. If it no longer becomes profitable for professional entertainers like musicians and film makers to earn a decent living, the only entertainment we will have easy access to are blurry movies on youtube made by attention whoring teenagers.




posted on May, 9 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   
SO many people have SO much pirated music and software, it'd be nigh impossible to take every person's computer. If you do have pirated stuff, just keep everything on an external disk, or encrypted, or whatever (not that I condone it).

I think this law might be more for 'scientific' things perhaps? Music piracy is one thing, but patented ideas might be another thing. Maybe someone who is more familiar with it can say I'm trying to say
.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mattguy404
 


Don't kid yourself. This is all about the entertainment industry.

The RIAA and the MPAA are the prime movers and shakers behind this bill.

www.washingtonpost.com...



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mattguy404
 


I cannot imagine the government confiscating tens of millions computers, but they may go after the worst offenders like people who are hosting websites which distribute pirated works or people who have exceptionally large libraries of pirated works. They may also be content with just imposing fines on small time offenders, giving them what would amount to a "parking ticket."

I suppose people that willfully infringe patents use computers, but the internet age has not been as much of a threat to patent holders as it has for copyright holders. Afterall, we could all easily download pretty much any song or movie we wanted for free with our computers. We could not use our computers to get free tangible items that are protected by patents like pills, electronics, machines, etc.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Information can't be destroyed. This website is proof of that--every idea, no matter how crazy, is preserved digitally in at least a hundred computers, some of which are beyond America's reach. Not even China can control the flow of data completely, and they don't have the handicap of operating in secrecy like their hypothetical American counterparts would have to.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Makoto
 


I do not think that anybody is saying that there will never be piracy and that every single anti-piracy measure is full proof. Piracy can be curtailed though.

The people pushing the anti-piracy measures through are not trying to "destroy" information. To the contrary, these people are creators of the information that you seem to hold dear. In order to create this information, these people invest a great deal of time and money. Copyright laws were made so they could get a return on their investment. If weak copyright laws prevent these people from getting a return on their investment, they will no longer create the information you seem to hold dear.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Unfortunately those who care about the democratic process and deterioration of a citizens privacy are, as usual, beset upon by people who seem to think the internet is primarily for downloading music and porn.

Shunning that distraction I ask, why was it necessary to introduce this act under suspension of house rules?


During the past decade, the House of Representatives has made frequent use of its procedure for acting expeditiously on measures through a motion to suspend the rules. The procedure is regarded as well adapted for this purpose, because it limits debate to 40 minutes, permits no floor amendments, and requires two-thirds of Members present and
voting (a quorum being present) to pass the measure.

The procedure is frequently used for measures not involving great complexity or controversy.


Source:
Order Code 97-901 GOV
Updated January 6, 2005
Suspension of Rules in the House:
Measure Sponsorship by Party
Thomas P. Carr
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division

Shall we consider:


The US House of Representatives has just passed the act under suspension of House rules, states Billboard, saying an official quorum vote is expected on the House floor this evening.

“Introduced by House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers Jr. last December, the Act (H.R. 4279) would create the office of a U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative in the White House to represent and advise the president on IP issue,” says the story, observing:

“The representative would produce a national joint strategic plan to protect and enforce IP rights, and would be responsible for seeing its implementation by various government agencies.”
- from the OPs post.


So a new, Executive office under the Administrations' direct control expressly for the enforcement of law.

- But let's limit the debate, this isn't controversial. Uh huh - nothing to concern yourselves with here citizens, just move along.

[edit on 9-5-2008 by Maxmars]



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   
If you do not have a fixed IP at home, how exactly does one differentiate a collection's contents? How do you know what is downloaded, what is copied from a disc, and what is recorded from the radio? It is my belief that you cannot enforce this law. Maybe just jail everyone who has music on their computer because there 'may' be tainted music in the collection. I made digital copies of my CDs and when the CDs got damaged, I threw them away. I owned the right to listen to my CDs. Am I to believe that because the original copy is trashed, I lose that right to listen to my copies?

I recall recording the radio was supposed to destroy the industry when I was a kid, yet radio is still chugging along. My 8tracks and cassettes did not decimate the artists of the day when I recorded from the radio. If I have a song on my player and you want to copy it onto yours, I cannot see this as a crime.

There will always be those who copy music no matter who cries about it.
The industry needs to evolve with the times. Today's peer to peer is yesterday's radio recording.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by shadow watcher
 


First the recording industry does not have a problem with people who make back up copies of their CD's. These people are not hurting CD sales and you are fully aware that most of the copies people make of CD's are not back up copies.

Second, radio does not undermine the recording industry like the internet has. Radio and the recording industry have had a mutually beneficial relationship. The recording industry gets exposure and royalties from radio, radio gets material from the recording industry. Napster and other sites like it have caused a steep decline in CD sales. While it is possible to record music off the radio, recording music off the radio is not as easy or as prevalent as music downloading.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by shadow watcher
 


Your observation may well be the very soul of it's eventual demise. Should this become a lawful entity with the power to enforce, we must hope some day we get a good amicus brief or legislator who will demonstrate that the only way for this law to be 'enforceable' is to accept the notion of guilty unless proven innocent, so anything on your system is assumed illegal unless you provide a receipt or something on demand.

Of course, if the nation gravitates towards 'Napoleonic' law in this would-be s evolution towards fascism we're screwed!



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
now its up the senate right?? The government is overstepping their authority. I hope the senate is smarter than that and not pass it.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by anti us gov
now its up the senate right?? The government is overstepping their authority. I hope the senate is smarter than that and not pass it.


Apologies for the one line response but, sorry, don't get your hopes up; the RIAA has even got its lawyers nominated as judges now.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by shadow watcher
 


First the recording industry does not have a problem with people who make back up copies of their CD's. These people are not hurting CD sales and you are fully aware that most of the copies people make of CD's are not back up copies.

Second, radio does not undermine the recording industry like the internet has. Radio and the recording industry have had a mutually beneficial relationship. The recording industry gets exposure and royalties from radio, radio gets material from the recording industry. Napster and other sites like it have caused a steep decline in CD sales. While it is possible to record music off the radio, recording music off the radio is not as easy or as prevalent as music downloading.


On your first point, It doesn't matter whether they are OK with it or not. This effort legitimizes the practice of seizure to make the determination based on implicit guilt. If they don't know where the copy came from what are they to act on, certainly not the assumption of innocence. If I have put my entire CD collection on my hard drive, and that device is somehow accessible (via P2P, VPN, or other method - even hacking) it is evidence of 'wrongdoing' unless they determine otherwise. It's the presumption if authority based on 'judgment' that is not based on innocence of the 'subject'

On your second point, I take exception to the tired reference to the archaic and soon to be defunct business model that falsely claims the creative sources are the benefactors of the protection of revenue. This does nothing to protect or serve the artists and many of them will tell you so. This is about 'propping up' a failing industry hell bent on retaining the stranglehold it has on the medium of creative expression.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


if you are so worried about the government getting a hold of your ip address why not just switch your browser over to Firefox they have a free down loadable add on that generates a false ip address for one time use -use it lose it -make another one and so on they can`t find that which does not exist now can they-Microsoft is the governments lackey so why use their crap,firefox is safer also donwload finjan for better security for sites visited.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


haha yep



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by picrat
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


if you are so worried about the government getting a hold of your ip address why not just switch your browser over to Firefox they have a free down loadable add on that generates a false ip address for one time use -use it lose it -make another one and so on they can`t find that which does not exist now can they-Microsoft is the governments lackey so why use their crap,firefox is safer also donwload finjan for better security for sites visited.


How do you download this? I've used firefox for years and never heard of it?



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   
It seems to me that this bill is directed towards those who manufacture fake copies of software or other intellectual property and sell those copies to others.

HR4279



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 12:51 AM
link   
I have not bought a cd in 10 years. I will buy one when two things happen:

1.) The artists are get more of the sales money than the record company

2.) The music industry stops selling 90% crap music



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 01:28 AM
link   
The law is simply insane.

Firstly people do not falsify their IP address to download music files.

Most people get their IP address automatically from a pool of available addresses via DHCP protocol. The next time you reboot you could have a different address.
Most home computers do not have an address of their own. Quite simply the Internet Service Providers refuse to provide a static address unless you pay them business rate for your service. This is because you can own the address and move your Web Server to another ISP if you want, and keep the traffic to your site. They want the ability to grab any site with traffic if you leave. Or to charge you more to increase the ability to support the growth traffic.

Inside most buisness networks, all the addresses are "Falsified"
usually using what is referred to as ten net addresses. 10.101.101.0 for instance. This would not be routable on the internet. The address is then again falsified at the firewall / router bordering the company to a "legal" address, but not the original address, and not an address known to belong to the original source.

So to simplify what I have said your computer dosen't really have an address. The one it uses is routinely falsified by the network.

For a more solid ID there is a hardware id in the interface card called a MAC address. This is supposed to be unique, in theory. And not falsifyable. Except that many devices now make it falsifyable because collisions of the same address from cheap import hardware caused lots of headaches.

The law of course could not stand up to the light of day, but your equipment will be obsolete before you get it back so what the hell do they care!

[edit on 10-5-2008 by Cyberbian]



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by shadow watcher
 


Shadow,

Actually, After the DMCA was passed, yes it is a crime. You are not allowed to copy anything that is digitized. That means that you can't copy them from the cd to your computer, and keep them, WITHOUT keeping the original cd's or the reciept showing that you purchased the music. That proof has to be put somewhere as to allow you to show that you have a legitimate copy.

Other things to keep in mind, this bill would not be the government taking your computer. This bill gives TEETH to the RIAA and the MPAA to force the ISP to force the local police to get a search warrant, confiscate all the computer equipment in the house, then hold it for the prosecution of the copy right infringement.

Prior to this, basically people were being ignorant in admitting that they had copyrighting material, that they obtained illegally. That is the flaw with the cases of the RIAA, and the MPAA. They must proof that you indoubtly accessed illegal material to obtain it. They due this by getting circumstantial evidence from the ISP. Here is the issue with this. The inital act of identifying someone usually takes place by a 3rd party hired by them.

Lets say that company spanky finds the IP of joe blow on monday, day 1. They turn that info over to the RIAA on Day 2. The RIAA then contacts the ISP on Day 5 with the proper information for them to search for the person with the IP. The ISP's abuse department the starts its search on Day 15, finds the ip, corralates it to a house, and thus an owner.

Here is the problem with this. Did the ISP search to see that there were no other locations that had had that IP from Day 1 to Day 15? This includes not only DHCP logs, but Router Logs? The answer is most definately NO. The Abuse departments are usually just advanced customer service reps. They don't have 1, the skils, 2 the knowledge, and 3 the access to do all that. That mean that in order for them to do this, they would have to contact a network engineer to perform this search. Lets say they didn't find anyone else. O.k. when was the last time the settings were cleared on the router, the cmts or Dslam? Did they document that? Chances are no.

All the stuff that is provided to the RIAA or the MPAA is Circumstancial. If you have knowledge, and have a good lawyer, you can manage to get the case dismissed. The issue is that how many people actualy don't have a lawyer? Probably the majority of those people that they are going after. Additionally, If an RIAA lawyer actually was referred to a defense lawyer, Do you think they want to continue with all this, or do you think they would just not presue it, and go after another Joe Blow?

All I can say is that this law gives them teeth, to get the equipment to verify that the law has been broken. SO if you don't want to deal with this, I suggest news groups. Chances are this is where your P2P probably got the stuff originally anyway.

Cheers,

Camain



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join