Slashdot Log In
US Senate Passes PRO-IP Act
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sat Sep 27, 2008 07:10 AM
from the ruh-roh-shaggy dept.
from the ruh-roh-shaggy dept.
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The Senate has passed the PRO-IP Act. While they stripped out the provision to have the DoJ act as copyright cops, it still contains increased penalties for infringement, civil forfeiture provisions, and creates an 'IP czar' to coordinate enforcement. Even though the civil forfeiture provisions are ostensibly intended for use against commercial piracy outfits, history indicates that they will probably get used against individuals at some point. Worse, because they left out the only part of the bill that Bush threatened to veto, it is expected to pass. It is going back to the House where they're expected to pass it on Saturday, after which the President will probably sign it. So, if you want to contact your representative, hurry."
An anonymous reader notes that DefectiveByDesign.Org is mobilizing to fight this legislation. The Senate vote was unanimous. We've been following the progress of this bill for quite some time.
Related Stories
[+]
Congress Creates Copyright Cops 533 comments
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Not satisfied with pitiful potential penalties of $150,000 for infringing upon a $0.99 song, Congress is proposing new copyright cops in the "'PRO IP' Act of 2007, specifically the creation of the Office of the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative (USIPER). They also feel that the authorities need the authority to seize any computers used for infringement and to send copyright cops abroad to help other countries enforce US laws. MPAA boss Dan Glickman praised the bill saying that, 'films left costs foreign and domestic distributors, retailers and others $18 billion a year,' though Ars points out that it allegedly costs the studios only $6 billion."
[+]
PRO-IP and PIRATE Acts Fused Into New Bill 324 comments
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) have just sponsored a new bill, the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008, which would combine the worst parts of the PRO-IP Act and the PIRATE Act. The basic idea is pretty simple: expand the Federal government to create something like the Department of Homeland Security for IP. The Copyright Czar then polices the internet and clogs the courts with thousands of civil lawsuits against individual infringers so the RIAA doesn't have to. Feel free to contact your representatives with your feelings about this bill. Right now, they believe the bill (PDF) will 'protect jobs.'"
[+]
DOJ Opposes Extending DOJ Copyright Authority 141 comments
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The White House has opposed the bipartisan bill that would create copyright cops on the grounds that it would cause the Department of Justice to end up 'serving as pro bono lawyers for private copyright holders.' And while they do occasionally prosecute criminal copyright infringement, they have no intention of dabbling with civil cases because, 'taxpayer-supported department lawyers would pursue lawsuits for copyright holders, with monetary recovery going to industry.' At this rate, the discovery of winged suiformes would appear to be imminent."
Submission: Senate Passes PRO-IP Act by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Huurah! (Score:2)
Everyone in favour of another treat for the plundering knights of the 'free' market, throw your hands in the air!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It'll just make other countries relatively more competitive.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm fine with it as long as this sort of thing stays in the USA. It'll just make other countries relatively more competitive.
I presume, then, that you missed the portion of the law creating five positions for "International Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordinators"? Their sole goal will be convincing other countries to adopt similar legislation.
Re:Huurah! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm fine with it as long as this sort of thing stays in the USA. It'll just make other countries relatively more competitive.
You wish. Every time any nation ups the ante with a more restrictive and draconian copyright law, everyone else (except China) jumps on the bandwagon to "harmonize". Nothing brings out the spirit of "international cooperation" like Disney Dollars.
Parent
China (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is why - in many ways - China may actual progress while the US will continue to stagnate.
With the current patent and IP system in the US, it will reward those that may come up with an idea but not necessarily though that produce a product. Moreover, producing a product becomes dangerous as the chances of intersecting somebody else's IP goes up, and companies become unwilling to produce products due to the risk of being sued.
Meanwhile, Chinese and other non-IP-following shops will continue to ignore Am
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm fine with it as long as this sort of thing stays in the USA.
It'll just make other countries relatively more competitive.
Depending on which country you're in, you may or may not be fine.
Europe will probably enact similar legislation 5-10 years down the line as a European law. Expect corresponding laws in EU member states to ratify these on a per-country basis after another 2-3 years.
For many parts of Africa, "being less competitive than the US" is the least of their problems.
For the middle East, any countries the US considers even remotely likely to become an economic threat may expect diplomatic measures and/or cluster bomb
Re:Huurah! (Score:4, Funny)
Poland is part of the EU now ;)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Voting (Score:5, Insightful)
This is outrageous! I don't think I can vote for the Senator running for president that voted for that bill that goes completely the wrong way on copyright reform, so I guess I'll have to vote for
The Senate vote was unanimous
Damn.
I wonder if any of the third party candidates opposed this bill...
Re:Voting (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that the US economy is moving away from the production of physical goods, and embracing IP production more and more, it should come as no surprise that the state got more involved in policing IP "theft".
I bet this is going to get advertised as another law to "save the US economy".
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Things like this, TRULY, make me laugh... not your post I am replying to!
(Well, part of it does, & it's not YOU, or your statement from you)
I mean, the very fact the US really IS 'moving away' from the production of physical goods in & of itself, is a damn joke!
I.E.-> Outsourcing harms us more than anything else!
( & the STUPID gov't. allows it! )
What they OUGHT TO BE DOING, is saying "Sure, we'll do 'laissez-faire', & allow you to do this, BUT, we will also penalize & tax you for doin
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Some decent points, & I'd have to say, in combination with those you replied to would probably be "a way" to get the job done, & done right... because it certainly IS NOT BEING DONE RIGHT, now, by the current administration (or, are the economic results satisfactory under the current & previous administration? NO WAY!).
E.G. - If you or I were to have "such a good performance on the job" as the current set of politicians have done (not, it's horrendous - proof being the state of the economy itsel
Re: (Score:2)
Truly free economy does not have monopolies, so copyright and patents are out of the question. Let the market encourage the creation of products... somehow.
And I don't understand why the government would need to maintain roads. For instance, the US already has enough roads. They can be maintained by tolls, or disappear. If your town doesn't have a good road infrastructure, move.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then you don't think you need a truly free economy. You just want the regulations to be where you like them. And want to remove the regulations that do not affect you, or that you don't undestand.
I also believe that if my government didn't spend so much money on health, they would have the money to give me a nice gift at the end of the year.
Re:Voting (Score:5, Insightful)
A free, unregulated economy above a certain size is almost guaranteed to degrade into monopolies. This is not just my assessment, but that of Adam Smith, founder of a lot of the principles of free-market capitalism.
Take for example the privitization of water in Argentina. The capital outlay is heavy enough that nobody else can afford to do it, or if they did they would have little chance of recouping. However, the water company in Argentina is by far one of the most profitable institutions in the country, nearly doubling monthly fees since their tenure. If there wasn't government regulation, that company could then enter into new markets with the hook that "if you sell anything other
than our beef, we won't provide water." This is exactly the tactic that Microsoft took in the mid 90's to prevent computer manufacturers from working with the other (many times superior) operating systems on the market at the time.
Taking it a step further, a "Truly Free" economy is indistinguishable from the anarchy that exists in a power vacuum, and which quickly degrades into feudal warlordism.
Oh, but you'd have regulations against use of force, improperly leveraging monopolies, properly labeling items, adhering to contracts, etc, etc, etc. And that of course all requires regulatory bodies, police force, civillian treaties for non-lethan enforcement, additional regulatory bodies to form and enact those civillian treaties, etc. As orasio mentioned, you can't have a "Truly free economy" without a hell of a lot of regulatory institutions. Otherwise, what would prevent me from saying "I'll insure your house against hurricanes," taking all of the money for personal use, and abandoning everyone when the first hurricane came along? Or becoming the head of an established bank, taking everyone's deposits, and heading for the Cayman islands?
As my father liked to say (in more colorful language), we're no longer arguing about if you're a communist, but just haggling over degrees.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No. What we need is a truly free economy that means A) No minimum wage, B) Copyright law where unless you are making money on the product you can pirate all you want C) Little to no patents D) The government stays out except to 1) Protect us 2) create general law and order 3) give a basic education and 4) maintain roads. If all those were followed, we would have no economic crisis.
Roads? Education? If people want education for their kids, they can buy it. And don't get me started on roads. Want to get somewhere, you take a helicopter. Don't see what's so hard about that. Law and Order? That's a TV show. You don't want someone stealing your stuff, you hire a security guard.
Re:Voting (Score:4, Insightful)
First, your comment about âoewe'll do laissez-faireâ but penalize you and tax you, blah blah blah, is ridiculous. Clearly taxes, quotas, and tariffs are not laissez faire.
The arguments against outsourcing and for protective tariffs are a total joke. They necessarily rest on the faulty mercantilist assumption that there is a fixed amount of labor in the world and when a company outsources labor to another country, US consumers are just that much worse off. I'll address that imaginary problem of eliminating âoeinternal jobsâ later. Regardless, when one argues that outsourcing is bad and tariffs are good, one is unquestionably arguing that it is 1) better for US consumers to pay higher prices for their goods than they otherwise would, and 2) that US workers should work in less-productive jobs than they otherwise would. Both of these will be explained and argued against in the quote from a book I have copied below.
The two largest reasons why people like yourself favor ridiculous economic legislation like high tariffs are that 1) you only look at the immediate consequences of the legislation, and 2) you clearly do not have a background in economics. Sure, tariffs help prevent foreign competition in US markets. This is good for the US producers of the product. However, it also keeps prices higher for US consumers, and keeps people employed in underproductive, less-than-competitive firms.
Every dollar over the world price that US consumers have to pay for a product is another dollar that they don't have to buy other items. For example, say China was producing sweaters for $25 and the US sweater industry produced them for $30. There is a protective tariff on foreign sweaters to allow US producers to compete. Now suppose the tariff is repealed. I'll quote directly from Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson:
"The tariff is repealed; the manufacturer goes out of business; a thousand workers are laid off; the particular tradesmen whom they patronized are hurt. This is the immediate result that is seen. But there are also results which, while much more difficult to trace, are no less immediate and no less real. For now sweaters that formerly cost retail $30 apiece can be bought for $25. Consumers can now buy the same quality of sweater for less money, or a much better one for the same money. If they buy the same quality of sweater, they not only get the sweater, but they have $5 left over, which they would not have had under the previous conditions, to buy something else. With the $25 that they pay for the imported sweater they help employment-as the American manufacturer no doubt predicted-in the sweater industry in England. With the $5 left over they help employment in any number of other industries in the UNited States. But the results do not end there. By buying English sweaters they furnish the English with dollars to buy American goods here. This, in fact (if I may here disregard such complications as fluctuating exchange rates, loans, credits, etc.) is teh only way in which the British can eventually make use of these dollars. Because we have permitted the British to sell more to us, they are now able to buy more from us if their dollar balances are not to remain perpetually unused. So as a result of letting in more British goods, we must export more American goods. And although fewer people are now employed in the American sweater industry, more people are employed-and much more efficiently empoloyed-in, say, the American washing-machine or aircraft-building business. American employment on net balance has not gone down, but American and British production on net balance has gone up. Labor in each country is more fully employed in doing just those things that it does best, instead of being force to do things that it does inefficiently or badly. Consumers in both countries are better off. They are able to
Parent
no (Score:3, Interesting)
i dont need to tell you that any such protectionist measures as you propose will be met with similar measures against usa in the world. nations are not stupid. they arent gonna let you go protectionist on your internal market, but export to their own internal markets. thats the fact of life, if you give, you have to take. get used to it.
im talking to you from outside, outta th
Re:Voting (Score:5, Insightful)
I prefer to call it data rather than IP. It draws attention to the fundamental nature of the product.
Parent
The geek is no less self-serving and deceptive (Score:4, Insightful)
.
It draws attention away from the true nature of the product.
WALL-E does not begin as a pre-existing stream of numbers but as the collective effort of about 400 artists and craftsman working on a budget of $180 million dollars.
That does not happen - that never happens - unless the studio and its financial backers see a reasonable expectation of profit.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
How? Lets see, aside from some US movies and music along with Apple or Microsoft,
So aside from almost everything?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Senate vote was unanimous
Not exactly true. It was passed by unanimous consent, which means that nobody who might have decided to vote against it actually cared enough to participate in the process.
The U.S. government has become very corrupt. (Score:3, Insightful)
An example of number 3 was removing the regulations that required banks to have assets similar to their liabilities, with the understanding that taxpayers would pay for the resulting bankruptcies.
Another example of number 3 was removing the regulations that required savings and loan [wikipedia.org] organizations to have sufficient assets to cover their loans, with the understanding that taxpayers would pay for the resulting bankruptcies.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Another example of number 3 was removing the regulations that required savings and loan [wikipedia.org] organizations to have sufficient assets to cover their loans, with the understanding that taxpayers would pay for the resulting bankruptcies.
Now now, let's not engage in hyperbole here! The regulations requiring them to have sufficient assets were never changed. What was changed was the definition of what constitutes an "asset"! The key line in the Wikipedia entry is
"They were also allowed to take an ownership position in the real estate and other projects to which they made loans"
Essentially what happened was that oversight over the real value of their assets was removed, which allowed the S&L's to basically buy worthless swampland and s
Good thing that they have their priorites right (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, it's not like they have a financial crisis that they should be spending their time on.
The existing system wasn't working... (Score:2, Interesting)
From Senator Wyden [senate.gov]:
"With over 30,000 civil suits filed by a single entity against individual Americans it is clear that industry is more than able to enforce its intellectual property rights in civil courts without the contribution of taxpayer funds and busy federal prosecutors."
But while that's a kind of system that should be working, it really isn't. There are still tens of millions of Americans who either believe that it is within their "fair use" rights to freely redistribute copyrighted materials to dozens of unknown online participants, or do so fully knowing it is illegal.
So while the method sucks... isn't this actually a reasonable place for government action, you know, in enforcing the law?
--
Learn electronics! Powerful microcontroller kits for the digi [nerdkits.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"So while the method sucks... isn't this actually a reasonable place for government action, you know, in enforcing the law?"
The simple answer is... NO. While it is a good idea to punish commercial exploitation of copyright. Punishing end users only makes matters worse. That so many people are breaking this law points to the fact that it is unjust. Unjust laws should be removed, not reinforced. An example of this is Prohibition. Consuming Alcohol was against the law, but no one followed the law. The government saw eventually that the law was unjust because so many broke it, and it was removed.
Should they have lined up all those t
Re: (Score:2)
Prohibition of alcohol involved a personal decision with essentially personal consequences -- never something the government should have been involved in.
Not really. At least some of the people who drink subsequently (or simultaneously) get in their cars and kill other people. Some of the people who drink subsequently beat their spouses or children. Some of them get involved in rowdy street riots after their favorite insert-sport-here team wins or loses a big game, breaking into shops, turning over cars, and starting fires. And while getting drunk doesn't cause those things to happen, it reduces the inhibitions of some people to the point where they sudd
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry...
Sorry, eh? For what? At least it makes it easier for me to know who to disagree with: they start out by apologizing. The Constitution give Congress the power to legislate copyright and patent laws to encourage useful arts and sciences. I can't see how this law will result in increased artistic and technological production and innovation. So I guess you don't get much respect from me either -- oh, and "sorry". Now go cry like a toddler yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
On the new stuff sure there should be some enforcement. Still when the penalty for copyright infringement is more harsh than murder or rape, ther
Re:The existing system wasn't working... (Score:5, Insightful)
And let us not forget these laws are being made up by the same folks who say ripping your purchased cd to your iPod is illegal [switched.com]. You see,this isn't about "teh evil piratez",this is about getting you conditioned to pay over and over and OVER again for the same crap.
I'm sorry I can't find the link from the studio head(I believe BMI) who said music should be pay per use,just like the old days of jukeboxes. Sadly,the guy was actually serious. Is that what you really want,a CC slot in your iPod so you can pay every time you want to hear a song? Maybe add a CC slot to your radio too? And don't think it can't happen,because our "How much money? Really?" whores in congress would sell out their own mothers for a fat enough check.
If EVERYONE is breaking your law then the law needs to be changed,PERIOD. Or did that "We,the people" part get changed to "We,the corporation" while I wasn't looking? Of course now that they are privatizing prisons this could turn into a win/win for the corps. They can rig the laws for themselves all they want,and when the people naturally break them because they are oppressive,they get paid by the state to warehouse them. Must be good to rule everything.
Parent
well, at least they're open about their commitment (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't know who runs the USA after today then you're simply blind: Corporations are the real government.
Vote the Fuckers Out (Score:5, Interesting)
This November we should all vote with one voice, Democrat and Republican, against the current corrupt congress. We should vote across the board, not Democrat or Republican but against anyone sitting in office. We should kick every single one of those bastards out, and we should keep kicking them out after just one term until they once more represent the people and not the businesses that contribute millions of dollars a year to their campaign funds. We should keep kicking them out until they spend more time doing the jobs we elected them to do instead of gallivanting around and campaigning for most of their terms. We should keep kicking them out until we find some people who actually take the responsibility to fix the major problems in thus country.
It is time to put aside our petty differences and root out this corruption that infects our very core, before it destroys this country.
Re:Vote the Fuckers Out (Score:5, Insightful)
It won't matter, because the ones that get voted in will still be Republicans & Democrats. I swear mainstream voters are *just* like abused spouses who just keep coming back for more beatings. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This would just result in one bunch of corrupt, spineless, thoughtless, clueless tube-savvy idiots to be replaced by another bunch of corrupt, blah blah, guys.
Look, every single senator and congressman has at some point got some money from corporates, etc. No one uses his money anymore to get elected.
You can keep kicking them out every 2 years, but the same type of guys will return every time.
Until such time a legislation is passed outlawing ALL outside funding for elections, except that provided by Governm
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sure it's most likely that a democrat or republican will get in behind them, but the longer they stay in Congress the more corrupt they get. A lot of the freshmen congressmen go in with the idea that they will s
Re:Vote the Fuckers Out (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not your guy, it's every guy! Reagan really started the ball rolling on the deregulation that is one of the reasons we're in this mess now.
No, it was Carter, who lifted rate caps and and upped FSLIC coverage to 100% for the S&L's...
No, wait... it was Nixon monkeying with the gold standard....
No, it was Johnson mortgaging our future with uncontrolled government spending...
Hold on.... I think I've spotted a pattern....
But the Democrats have been more than happy to suck at the teat of the taxpayer while enriching their own cronies. Get rid of them all is what I'm saying.
Damn straight!
Parent
Fiddling while Rome burns (Score:4, Insightful)
Thankfully this isn't that terrible of a bill with that ridiculous idea stripped out, but it was completely unnecessary. Our country is falling down around us, and they're worried about copyright infringement.
The only thing Democrats and Republicans can come together on is selling their constituents' rights for a few pennies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is obvious. The problem is, short-sighted individuals such as yourself don't have the bigger picture, don't seem to grasp the reason copyright was implemented in this country (although the Constitution lays it out in pretty clear English), and most of all don't realize that the power of copyright has been conscripted to benefit the few over the many
Misleading (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not an expert on the subject, but it looks like the summary doesn't match the article.
The summary says the new bill leaves out a section that might have brought a presidental veto, but the article says that the part that the president might take issue with, the creation of a "Copyright Czar" within the White House, was left IN the bill but that a veto is unlikely.
The summary also says that the bill has passed the senate, but I can't find a record of that in THOMAS [loc.gov] anywhere, just that the AMENDMENTS to the bill were unanimously approved and that the bill itself is scheduled to be voted on soon. Nothing has passed anything yet; there's no congressional voting record available.
This is an important piece of legislation, I know it is, but the summary makes it sound like this is a done deal when it's absolutely not. Some rudimentary fact-checking would've killed ya?
(and no, I'm not new here.)
Done Deal (Score:4, Insightful)
No, but its pretty damned close. And if you don't try to do anything about it today, it might as well be.
Parent
We are screwed (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet more proof that government is for the corporation, not the people. Too bad by the time the average joe is effected by this it will be far too late.
I will be willing to bet this is not the only thing that slips thru the side door while everyone watches the banking fiasco. ( like the automotive bailout...)
I wrote to my Congresswoman... (Score:5, Informative)
and all I got was this stinkin'...
Anyway, here is the real letter:
Please vote no on the 'PRO-IP Act'. This act is nothing but a provision to protect businesses who cannot adapt with our 'digital age' and will not accept that they need to create new products and not 're-hash' the same content every 10 years.
Consider the film industry. What are they up to now? They keep moving formats, each time simply because one may contain a better form of DRM. Both new formats for physical media, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, have DRM (digital rights management, a scheme to protect content from easily being copied by the average person) built-in that was stronger than DVD's protection. Regardless, as citizens, we are asking for our fair use rights back more than anything else, and the repeal of the DMCA. Now the MPAA as a whole has switched to BluRay in the hopes that such DRM will keep the money 'flowing in'. I, and many others, refuse to buy such a media even if we like the content. Secondly, we refuse to watch the content at all.
Every other industry is now similar, and they are simply placing the blame on 'pirates'. EA Games has implemented a DRM scheme where we may purchase their game, but only install it a total of 5 times, and each time will be accounted for because the installations will be verified on-line. After that, especially when such a product is not on the shelves any more, what is a fully law-abiding citizen to do?
It is nothing but a waste of tax money to have more resources in the government trying to keep these failing business models alive. Good businesses would adapt to the market properly, making new products, better products, understanding the customer needs, and certainly NOT treating the customers as criminals before they have even done anything 'illegal' (this is what they assume, since they use DRM so unwittingly and hardly give consumers warning).
Most citizens are going to agree that so-called 'street pirates' should be given punishment, including myself. That is the large difference. This bill has a provision for that, but it seems as though it could easily be used for individuals who are not making any money from 'pirates', who I cannot see as doing anything that is hurting these industries.
If RIAA head Mitch Bainwol has called the legislation "music to the ears of all those who care about strengthening American creativity and jobs," he really means that it will further allow the RIAA to enforce more DRM on their potential customers, while most are far too undereducated on the topic to know what is really going on. They buy a CD that may contain protection, or download a music file from a store, but what is almost NEVER labelled clearly is that such a medium is protected from fair use (i.e. making a backup copy).
What is here to replace the failing business models? Non-failing ones. We have the Internet, a place where people can publish their music (charge money or not) without ever having to go through a major publisher such as Warner. And same for films. While many will say much of Youtube is a waste, many people are gaining recognition. Monetary? Hardly, but they are happy with being known 'out there', just as a film star celebrity.
Tell the industries who want this law passed that they need to handle their business in ways that help and strengthen their relationships with their customers, not weaken them, just because a law says that they can do so, and please vote no under all circumstances.
Thank you
Everyone else please contact your Congressman/Congresswoman! Even a sentence or two can make the difference between not writing anything at all.
What's wrong with it? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only people that seem to be horribly affected by this is the people who seem to think it is ok to share copyrighted materials with as many people as want them, and they want to be immune from being prosecuted for their activities. This bill doesn't necessarily affect the legality of what they are doing, it stiffens the penalties.
In order to sidestep the entire issue, the recording industry should lower prices on all the various forms of audio and video media, make them more affordable to the general public and more available via online services. They would sell more, keeping profits rolling in, while lessening the widespread consumer file sharing because of the affordability. Sell mp3's for 15 cents each and CD's for $5. Alot of people do this because it's simply too expensive to buy all of their favorite music. How much would it cost to fill up that 4GB Ipod with legit CD's? Assuming you could fit somewhere in the neighborhood of 800 songs on there, that's $800 at Itunes. What if you could do it for under $100? I think alot of people would go for that.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Strong IP protection and enforcement will help protect one of our most vital and productive assets.
Our precious bodily fluids?
I don't think we want to go to a route like China, where lax IP enforcements stunt their domestic IP growth.
Yep, the Commies have no regard for intellectual property - not even their own.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think we want to go to a route like China, where lax IP enforcements stunt their domestic IP growth.
No, it is oppressive governments that stunt their domestic IP growth. And in the past few years we are heading to an oppressive government. And honestly, take out the oppressive government and China is doing just fine.