Forum - View topicNEWS: U.S. Copyright Law That Allows Equipment Seizures Signed
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sunflower
 Posts: 1080 |
|
|||||||
|
I find this scary in that it can be so easily misused. It sounds like if you do something suspicious or that the government doesn't like, they can confiscate all your computer equipment if they dig up one shred of evidence that you once illegally downloaded a song. This is their new phishing pole.
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Yoda117
Posts: 406 |
|
|||||||
They could. This is not new news to me, just a new law restating some things which have been around since 1985 (originally, though more geared toward the net in 1997). I'm curious to see what is different about this law compared to other Copyright Acts, CHAMP, and NET Act laws out there. And despite what some folks are saying, once the authorities get involved you still need a warrant to search a system (and when it comes to IP, that stuff is much lower on the list of hot topics for the FBI and SS). |
||||||||
|
||||||||
jhuhn
 Posts: 147 |
|
|||||||
|
I would definitely oppose this copyright law. It violates a person's privacy and the users would only use it for private use and not exhibit it for any profit. It's like team Viacom is winning this copyright battle.
Not only that, what if authorites seize property after you downloaded a file that was personally your own created music or video? That would send out a huge lawsuit that could be worth billions. It's like someone would say "So the government took a video or MP3 file that I had made for non-profit purposes and without trying to acquire my permission, used it in a for-profit broadcast and then they charged me with copyright infringement and had my computers and MP3 players confiscated. Folks, this is, as we say down here in the South, 'bass-ackwards.'" |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
LordPrometheus
|
|
|||||||
Agreed. He's pretty much the resident America bashing troll. I'm not quite sure why the mods leave him around, but that's their call, not mine. At any rate, don't get riled up by Gatsu; ignoring him seems to work for most everyone here. |
||||||||
Cait
 Posts: 503 |
|
|||||||
No, the government can't do that. A copyright owner has to suspect you of copyright infringement first and file a suit against you before your property can be searched or seized. They would also have to prove that you intended to distribute this copyright material illegally. Simply having material on your computer that is copyright is not illegal.
When you commit a crime you forfeit your right to privacy. When you murder someone the police have the right, with a search warrant, to search your house for the murder weapon. When you download mp3s without paying for them and then distribute them to others, with or without profit, you are breaking the law. This isn't about Viacom, this is about all of the copyright owners in the world, including yourself.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you created it, why would the government seize it from you? Are you suing yourself?
I don't know under what circumstances you think a thing like that could ever happen. First and foremost, the goverment is not going to "take your work and use it for profit." They can't do that, period. As long as you could prove that you wrote that piece of music you have rights to it and a corporation cannot "steal it." In that instance it would be them infringing on your intellectual property rights. Everything you write, as long as you put your name on it as proof that it is yours, you have protection to under the law. It's when someone does not claim a work that they created that this "orphaned" works thing comes up. The government is not going to "seize" any non-protected material and give it to anyone, they are simply going to regard anything not clearly claimed as open for taking by anyone who wants it. The moral of this story is, if you have a work which you wish to protect, you must clearly claim it (by putting your name on it, make yourself available for contact about it, etc.) so that if a commercial enterprise were to try to take it and use it without your permission you can serve them with a "cease and desist" order or sue them. You do not have to and have not been required to file or register a copyright in this country for over thirty years. For more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphaned_works |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Hon'ya-chan
 Posts: 973 |
|
|||||||
Copyright Infringement? In my Government? It's more likely than you think. FCC uses Doraemon on Site Shogakukan to Complain to FCC re: FCC Kidszone Mascot FCC Ignores Doraemon Complaint And just because politics is serious business: GW Bush Campaign Ad Includes... Anime? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Cait
Posts: 503 |
|
|||||||
I'm not saying it never has or never will happen, what I was arguing was concerning "orphaned" works, where the government does not actively "seize" the works created by others, nor does it "give" them to anyone or otherwise use them for a profit. What the law provides is that if, and I emphasize if, a work is deemed "orphaned," as in, the author is not known or cannot be found, it becomes essentially public domain and another individual, or group, can use it. People are complaining that this "orphaned works" law is taking rights away from copyright holders. Firstly, it only affects works where either the original owner cannot be discerned or cannot be contacted. Secondly, before this law, companies were not required to actually seek out the original owner of a supposedly "orphaned" work before using it; now they are. I don't see how it is any easier or harder to prove copyright infringement because of this issue. If anything, all it does is make intellectual property rights clearer and emphasizes the need for creators to make sure they are clear about the ownership of their creations. In any event, as far as I know the orphan works act is still in congress? I can't find anything newer than late September on the subject online (http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/), and then it was still in process. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
reanimator
|
|
|||||||
You're equating FCC's lack of supervision on its web content as their intentional abuse. How many FCC folks know about foreign cartoon mascot like Doraemon anyway? Probably none. Chances are some third party lazy-ass untalented web graphic design contractor hired by FCC, who modified existing character design, so that he or she didn't have to work hard while receiving bloated government fund. Once the mistake was completed, it's difficult for FCC to revert the action due to other issues. If Federal government is bent on violating copyrights, then every kid-friendly GOV sites would be loaded with modified foreign cartoon mascots of some kind. |
||||||||
|
reanimator
|
|
|||||||
I agree with you guys. I shouldn't say more negative things about him, but I have to mention it. On a BBS sites that I'm into, he posts stupid comments and useless info that don't got to do with original context. |
||||||||
|
Hon'ya-chan
Posts: 973 |
|
|||||||
Don't tempt me. I got Jihad Mickey just waiting in the wings. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
ConanSan
Posts: 1818 |
|
|||||||
Already spoken for |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Mohawk52
 Posts: 8202 Location: England, UK |
|
|||||||
Last edited by Mohawk52 on Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:10 am; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Yoda117
Posts: 406 |
|
|||||||
Hamas != US Govt. But good point, as there are plenty of other political entities which are willing to violate copyright laws at the drop of a hat. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Yoda117
Posts: 406 |
|
|||||||
If you didn't pay for it, and it's not "fair use", then you're actually violating an international convention from 1972. Considering the hoops that someone has to jump through to get a warrant for forensic discovery on your computer and another one from the ISP to see your net activity, it's not worth anyone's time to bother with you. Groups distributing hundreds of Gbs per month of pirated movies (especially if they charge people for FTP access). They're on the radar. Kid who ripped his own DVD onto the computer, not so much. Mainly because he already owns the right to use the property, just not to distribute it.
Why would you download a file that you created? I'm sure there are reasons, but I prefer to use the original copy. That said, in the unbelievably unlikely case that it happened, I think the fact that one is usually smart enough to sign their work in order to take credit for it would pretty much negate any issues from the start. Quite frankly, if anyone ever suspected a person of doing this, they'd first have to get a warrant to prove you downloaded it. Those same audit trails would show that you uploaded it it long before it ever got downloaded. It doesn't take much to figure things out. Hell, even the RIAA (whom most of us personally despise) was able to figure out that a file which tripped their automated scanning SW was a home-made file when they went after Penn St. University a few years back (they thought PSU faculty and students had been distributing MP3s of a new song by Usher; in fact it was a song by Paul Usher, faculty of the physics dept who did an a capella tribute to x-ray based telescopes). Here's the amusing part - FBI went after the RIAA because the server where the MP3 was located was illegally accessed by them. /yes someone got jail time, and the RIAA got fined //did not get much media exposure due to media clout of RIAA, but a good security person knows where to find the info |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
mlund
Posts: 60 |
|
|||||||
|
Let's see - unanimous passage through a Democrat controlled Senate and all but 10 members of the House of Representatives signed off on this - a veto-proof margin. That means the President doesn't have any say in the matter. I guess that sort of makes the issue out-of-bounds for the people whose idea of political awareness is cussing out George Bush on the Internet.
More to the issue at hand, however, Intellectual Property is one of the United States biggest exports. We've got a huge amount invested in the Entertainment and Software industries. Copyright violations (really piracy when you get down to it) cuts into revenue for our industries. Consequently, that cuts into Tax Revenues - and nothing motivates the National Government like cutting into their Tax Revenues. Why, if people were allowed to keep their own money what would politicians have to use to buy votes? Without confiscation of private property, how would they ever expand the class of peons indentured to the National Government? What would they possible run on? It'd be ... barbaric! I see no threat in this bill. All charges still need to be brought through a court of law. Prosecutions will still need to meet a burden of proof including proof of damages. "Intent to distribute," will need to be proven in court, with the presumption of innocence. Again, I see no reason to panic - unless of course you have a major vested interest in violating the property rights of others. - Marty Lund |
||||||||
|
||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group