How exactly is that a valid analogy? The Nazis were actually killing their enemies, not just rounding them up. I haven't read the PRO-IP Act, but I'm pretty sure that it doesn't mention anything about allowing these copyright cops to kill offenders.
What really matters is that you're using the word "enemies" without even thinking about it.
The people are "enemies" of the cops? For engaging in imaginary victimless crimes? The cops are the "enemies" of the people for enforcing absurd and abusive laws?
It no longer matters whether you use words like Nazi once you reveal that deeper thinking, even as you defend your "enemies".
I propose that we call this bill the "Anti-Consumer" bill. Maybe the media would pick up on something that seems a bit more sinister and threatening. After all fear seems to be their calling card these days.
Before we have a bill like this passed and then a bunch of 'ip cops' running around ripping ipods out of your children's hands, and following you home after buying a pack of recordable CDs to search your home.
Either will legally become "probable cause" and justification of an instant warrantless search/seizure/detainment.
Freedom and privacy is screwed and our founding fathers are spinning in their grave.
Either will legally become "probable cause" and justification of an instant warrantless search/seizure/detainment.
The cops stopped needing that quite some time ago. Seems DWI checkpoints were more important to the voters than the 4th Amendment. Then cam the War and Drugs, and then the War on Terror, and now there's not much that calls for a warrant any more.
1. Put copy of kid's book report HarryPotter.txt on P2P server 2. Wait for DMCA notice 3. Immediately call cops to raid the offices of Media Sentry because they have clearly downloaded YOUR copyright work.
Or require a permit and license to purchase CD/DVD media. And as a condition of the license, you agree to allow warrantless search of your property at any time.
Don't think this could happen?? Well, here's an existing precedent: this is EXACTLY what you agree to if you have a kennel permit (notably in most California jurisdictions, but also in some other states) -- the terms of the permit state that your property can be searched at any time, for any or NO reason, WITHOUT A WARRANT.
When a fed comes to your door, I have three words for you. Headshots headshots headshots. They wear armored vests and helmets so aim for the eyes. (paraphrased)
Yeah, because eeeeeverybody here agrees to cop killings over some dispute about copyright violations. Now I don't know what'd happen if I got on your bad side, but I think you're one of those that make me very much pro gun control laws...
Because gun control laws have proven so effective in reducing crime, right?
Come on guy, give me a fucking break. All those laws do is make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain life-preservers to use to protect themselves against the people who just ignored the gun laws.
Oh the cop killing routine.
Fed != Cop.
"Cop Killing" brings up the image of a posterboy neighborhood cop getting shot by some asshole who was drunk driving. Law enforcement from the federal government is a great deal different than local or even state. What's the big difference? Feds can make you disappear.
No trial, no "due process". They can quasi-legally make you disappear (see black sites in Hungary, etc).
Dispute about copyright violation is different from someone coming into my home, violating my pe
(this is in reference to the Amen Break, an extremely over used piece of audio that the originators were never paid for, nor were they granted copyright)
I was half-joking. I don't own a gun and don't plan to own one, but if some enforcer wants to seize my gadgets just because of the music on them then I fully support the beating, maiming, and bukkake'ing of them. Just not shooting them in the head, because that would be savage.
Ahh, but he Liddy issued a public retraction a few days later, something like "I'm sorry I asked my listeners to shoot the feds in the face... the groin is a better target". Nothing I could possibly add to *that* comment.
I'm saddened that Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) doesn't represent my district so I can't try to get him recalled. At the same time, I'm glad I didn't elect him to office.
As for the bill, there is nothing to be glad for there.
Seed cops; Those seeds are copyright - you cannot plant them/you violated copyright by planting them
IP cops; thank you for welcoming us to your business, we will now audit all of your computer systems
RIAA cops; thank you for welcoming us to your home, we will now audit all your media for copyright violations
MPAA cops; You know when you pirate a movie a small child dies in a third world country, you should be ashamed of yourself
And of course the "say goodbye to innovation cops", these guys will be the thought police come to audit your head for having ideas that just happened to already be copyright.
Don't get me wrong, I think this is insane, and I hope it goes the way of similar bills before it, but the tighter the so-called "content cartels" grip on their copyright, the more persuasive the arguments for Creative Commons, GPL (v2 or v3), and other similar copyright-related social movements become. The same laws that protect the iron grip of Disney on Mickey Mouse for as long as they can legislate it, also protect those who participate in the Creative Commons (like Nine Inch Nails to take a totally non-random example) from the Disneys, the Time Warners, and the Sonys of the world. They can only be the gatekeepers of "the culture" if YOU choose to pay the entry fee. There's plenty enough out there that they don't control, that they CAN'T control anymore. All this sound and fury is trying to make people focus on them instead of looking for alternatives. There's no such thing as bad publicity, and all that.
The onus is on those who claim that art should be for love and not money to put up or shut up. If you're an artist, go make some art under something like Creative Commons that both allows you to make money off it when someone else is making money off it (and sue the pants off them if they don't pay you for it), and allows people who aren't making money off it to spend as much money as they want spreading the word about how awesome you are. If you're not an artist, don't forget that artists need to eat as much as you do. Actually reach into that wallet and give money to artists that take a chance and produce work that you like under a Creative Commons license (or some other license with terms that aren't crazy) and be as generous as you can afford. Every Tom, Dick, and Sally that releases something under Creative Commons isn't worth supporting just because they're releasing as Creative Commons. There is a TON of freely distributable junk out there. However there ARE people out there that every one of us reading this story would feel comfortable supporting, and rather than shovel money on a monthly basis into Comcast's, or Sirius', or Time Warner's or whomever's bank account for content that isn't worth using as toilet paper, a small fraction of that money could make a world of difference for one of the people that IS taking a risk and releasing good content under terms that are reasonable.
Where the hell is the Creative Commons Foundation of the Arts, taking donations and patronizing quality artists that release work under the Creative Commons like the foundations supporting free software? Do you think this stuff grows on trees?
Dude, police appropriate goods that are "believed" to have been purchased with drug money all the time. It's up to the owner to prove that they were not. If that's not a violation of due process (innocent until proven guilty?) then what is?
I'm sorry, have you been paying attention recently?
That's how things are supposed to be. If things were how they were supposed to be according to the constitution 99% of this bullshit wouldn't even be getting heard by congress.
And in the meanwhile, they can take some meager/manufactured "evidence", turn that into a warrant where they seize every piece of mail, computer, and storage device in your house. Then you have to hire a lawyer. You'll get all of that back when the trial's done in a year or two unless the jury decides to convict you on that same flimsy evidence. 12 peers helps make things reasonable, but it's still a crap shoot, and you're out the lawyer money either way.
The problem being this, copyright infringement is NOT a criminal offence. It's a civil matter. No one, not one single person is in prison for the crime of "copyright infringement", at all.
It's not merely the DMCA that is criminal. The N.E.T. act in fact turned a substantial percentage of the entire U.S. population into felons. In particular essentially everyone who has ever used P2P at all - tens of millions of people right there - are felons. And it goes beyond that. Two elementary school children who swap oldskool audiocassette tapes are felons. And more.
The United States No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), a federal law passed in 1997, provides for criminal prosecution of individuals who engage in copyright infringement, even when there is no monetary profit or commercial benefit from the infringement. Maximum penalties can be five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. -- The term "financial gain" includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.
Title 17 United States Code Section 506 Criminal offenses (a) Criminal Infringement. -- (1) In general. -- Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed -- (A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; (B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or (C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
So under section (A) it is Criminal Infringement if you infringe and have "receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works", criminalizes ANY P2P use if you upload some much as a single file and download so much as a single file. Or if you exchange some much as a an audiocassette mix tape, or almost anything else. Under section (B) "reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000 pretty well covers any nontrivial uploading anywhere or almost any sort of nontrivial distribution at all, even if you never receive anything at all. Section (C) criminalizes any "pre-release" leak whatsoever. Note that later text "clarifies" that a movie released to movie theaters is still in "pre-release", so any leak of a movie running in theaters but "has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility" is criminal.
Prison sentence: Up to 10 years for a second offense. Up to 5 years for "the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500". (Which would cover moderate P2P usage.) Up to 1 year "in any other case". (Covering effectively anyone who has ever touched P2P at all, any anyone who has done any of a number of other trivial things such as swap mix tapes.)
I figure the US population is currently subject to well over a hundred million person-years in prison.
And for bonus points, I love the way industry lawyers pulled off most of this insane law by slipping an innocent looking sentence into the DEFINITIONS section of law, and advertising their beloved bill as merely updating copyright law to properly deal with commercial criminal infringement operations. That's the typical sort of thing that goes on when you literally allow industry lawyers to write the laws we pass.
They can seize all of your assets by claiming that they were involved in a crime. Then, suddenly, your "due process" rights are defended by a public defender because you are dirt poor. "Due process" on property rights was largely destroyed because of the asset forfeiture laws and a bunch of motherfucking judicial scumbags who like to split hairs about issues like whether or not it is really a violation of your constitutional rights to allow the police to "charge your property" with a crime instead of chargi
The copyright vans drive out in the a.m.
The ip's are real and have real people, with real hd's. Courts know nothing about "routers" or 'wi fi"
The ip's will have connected to the server and may have copyright files.
You sit down with a free defence lawyer who just graduated from real estate and law night school.
A quick look into your hd's finds 'files'.
Time to look at the offer - sign right now and get 15 years. You must also talk about a few of your friends. Sign now.
The other option is to face cou
The copyright cops have to follow due process and you have the right to a jury tail.
My goodness, what a protected life you must lead.
The reality is that cops follow procedure when and if they feel like it. Furthermore, merely being accused of a crime is a punitive action in this country (taken before you even get your due process and your jury trial.) Getting arrested is no fun, especially if you haven't done anything. Then you have the joyful experience of defending yourself before said jury, and when you lose because the copyright owners have unlimited funds and you do not, you're life is thoroughly trashed. That's even more true when you're fighting for your rights in a criminal court, versus a civil one.
So be very, very careful of accepting any newfound powers our government arrogates to itself, especially those granted at the behest of the private sector.
According to the various sources you read, everything on my blog/forum comments/youtube uploads is mine via copyright. Will these "cops" protect me too and seize every computer they can find wth a copy (cache) of my flickr photos?
Copyright infringement is a civil offence, its the responsibly of the owner to enforce their copyright, why then are people trying to create a federal division to enforce it?
Because that's how you gain power. By making criminals of your subjects, you gain power over them - the power to threaten them with fines, imprisonment, or death. How can your government control you if you've broken no law? It can't -- at least, not reliably -- so it makes up laws that are impossible to follow or interpret, and in so doing, forces us to jump through its hoops to avoid imprisonment. It doesn't matter whether they catch all the "criminals", only that they catch enough to make examples of. Eventually, you find yourself complying, if for no other reason than that you're afraid that someday you might be picked as the "example".
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said
Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that
it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know
that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power
and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick,
and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men.
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares
so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live
without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens'
What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that
can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and
you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt.
Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you
understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
And for those who automatically reject everything Rand wrote (because they don't like some of what Rand wrote), how about a former Attorney General and US Supreme Court Justice?
"With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes,
a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical
violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case,
it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and
then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of
picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting
investigators to work, to pin some offense on him."
- Robert H. Jackson [slashdot.org], 1940
And then I'd push my state legislature to outlaw these 'copyright cops'.
And then your Federal overlords would threaten to withhold highway funding, and your state legislature would cave.
Either they can be found just as guilty of something, and then everyone's on the same footing - and Ayn Rand falls flat on her face. Or they are exempt from laws that affect the regular plebeians
What are you, stupid? They're not exempt from the laws; they're exempt from the enforcement. In other words, they decide who gets investigated, so they simply decide that it won't be them!
Let me ask you something - if everyone is guilty of something, how do government officials stay in the office? Either they can be found just as guilty of something, and then everyone's on the same footing - and Ayn Rand falls flat on her face. Or they are exempt from laws that affect the regular plebeians ...
They are exempted, as it is the case in Australia: hundreds of police officers in South Australia were caught with pirated movies on their computers, but they will not be prosecuted because "the ab [torrentfreak.com]
I'm sure this won't get abused (Score:5, Insightful)
valid analogy invoked the first (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The people are "enemies" of the cops? For engaging in imaginary victimless crimes?
The cops are the "enemies" of the people for enforcing absurd and abusive laws?
It no longer matters whether you use words like Nazi once you reveal that deeper thinking,
even as you defend your "enemies".
Re: (Score:3)
See what I did there? I'm obviously claiming that my neighbor's car alarm killed millions of jews.
Some people might get confused and think I was merely expressing intense dislike for my neighbor's car alarm, but people like you know what I mean.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It will only become Nazi enough for me when they come for me.
I think I speak for everyone here (Score:2)
"Awwwww, fuck."
In the spirit of Pro-Life (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its just a matter of time (Score:2)
Either will legally become "probable cause" and justification of an instant warrantless search/seizure/detainment.
Freedom and privacy is screwed and our founding fathers are spinning in their grave.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2. Wait for DMCA notice
3. Immediately call cops to raid the offices of Media Sentry because they have clearly downloaded YOUR copyright work.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't think this could happen?? Well, here's an existing precedent: this is EXACTLY what you agree to if you have a kennel permit (notably in most California jurisdictions, but also in some other states) -- the terms of the permit state that your property can be searched at any time, for any or NO reason, WITHOUT A WARRANT.
In the words of G. Gordon Liddy (post prison) (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Come on guy, give me a fucking break. All those laws do is make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain life-preservers to use to protect themselves against the people who just ignored the gun laws.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
(this is in reference to the Amen Break, an extremely over used piece of audio that the originators were never paid for, nor were they granted copyright)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
All IP is equal (Score:2)
I'm both saddened and glad (Score:2)
As for the bill, there is nothing to be glad for there.
In the words of Bill Hicks... (Score:3, Funny)
Well, I prefer the puppet of the left.
Hey, the same guys are controlling both puppets! We're fucked!
If this passes... (Score:3, Insightful)
Seed cops; Those seeds are copyright - you cannot plant them/you violated copyright by planting them
IP cops; thank you for welcoming us to your business, we will now audit all of your computer systems
RIAA cops; thank you for welcoming us to your home, we will now audit all your media for copyright violations
MPAA cops; You know when you pirate a movie a small child dies in a third world country, you should be ashamed of yourself
And of course the "say goodbye to innovation cops", these guys will be the thought police come to audit your head for having ideas that just happened to already be copyright.
Big Mother in sooo many ways.
Maybe people will stop watching. (Score:3, Interesting)
The onus is on those who claim that art should be for love and not money to put up or shut up. If you're an artist, go make some art under something like Creative Commons that both allows you to make money off it when someone else is making money off it (and sue the pants off them if they don't pay you for it), and allows people who aren't making money off it to spend as much money as they want spreading the word about how awesome you are. If you're not an artist, don't forget that artists need to eat as much as you do. Actually reach into that wallet and give money to artists that take a chance and produce work that you like under a Creative Commons license (or some other license with terms that aren't crazy) and be as generous as you can afford. Every Tom, Dick, and Sally that releases something under Creative Commons isn't worth supporting just because they're releasing as Creative Commons. There is a TON of freely distributable junk out there. However there ARE people out there that every one of us reading this story would feel comfortable supporting, and rather than shovel money on a monthly basis into Comcast's, or Sirius', or Time Warner's or whomever's bank account for content that isn't worth using as toilet paper, a small fraction of that money could make a world of difference for one of the people that IS taking a risk and releasing good content under terms that are reasonable.
Where the hell is the Creative Commons Foundation of the Arts, taking donations and patronizing quality artists that release work under the Creative Commons like the foundations supporting free software? Do you think this stuff grows on trees?
Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Sweet, sweet jury tail (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The copyright cops have to follow due process
And in the meanwhile, they can take some meager/manufactured "evidence", turn that into a warrant where they seize every piece of mail, computer, and storage device in your house. Then you have to hire a lawyer. You'll get all of that back when the trial's done in a year or two unless the jury decides to convict you on that same flimsy evidence. 12 peers helps make things reasonable, but it's still a crap shoot, and you're out the lawyer money either way.
Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a (Score:5, Informative)
The United States No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), a federal law passed in 1997, provides for criminal prosecution of individuals who engage in copyright infringement, even when there is no monetary profit or commercial benefit from the infringement. Maximum penalties can be five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. -- The term "financial gain" includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.
Title 17 United States Code
Section 506 Criminal offenses
(a) Criminal Infringement. --
(1) In general. -- Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed --
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
So under section (A) it is Criminal Infringement if you infringe and have "receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works", criminalizes ANY P2P use if you upload some much as a single file and download so much as a single file. Or if you exchange some much as a an audiocassette mix tape, or almost anything else.
Under section (B) "reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000 pretty well covers any nontrivial uploading anywhere or almost any sort of nontrivial distribution at all, even if you never receive anything at all.
Section (C) criminalizes any "pre-release" leak whatsoever. Note that later text "clarifies" that a movie released to movie theaters is still in "pre-release", so any leak of a movie running in theaters but "has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility" is criminal.
Prison sentence:
Up to 10 years for a second offense.
Up to 5 years for "the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500". (Which would cover moderate P2P usage.)
Up to 1 year "in any other case". (Covering effectively anyone who has ever touched P2P at all, any anyone who has done any of a number of other trivial things such as swap mix tapes.)
I figure the US population is currently subject to well over a hundred million person-years in prison.
And for bonus points, I love the way industry lawyers pulled off most of this insane law by slipping an innocent looking sentence into the DEFINITIONS section of law, and advertising their beloved bill as merely updating copyright law to properly deal with commercial criminal infringement operations. That's the typical sort of thing that goes on when you literally allow industry lawyers to write the laws we pass.
-
Parent
You clearly know little about asset forfeiture (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The ip's are real and have real people, with real hd's.
Courts know nothing about "routers" or 'wi fi"
The ip's will have connected to the
server and may have copyright files.
You sit down with a free defence lawyer who just
graduated from real estate and law night school.
A quick look into your hd's finds 'files'.
Time to look at the offer - sign right now and get 15 years.
You must also talk about a few of your friends.
Sign now.
The other option is to face cou
Re:The copyright cops have to follow due process a (Score:4, Insightful)
My goodness, what a protected life you must lead.
The reality is that cops follow procedure when and if they feel like it. Furthermore, merely being accused of a crime is a punitive action in this country (taken before you even get your due process and your jury trial.) Getting arrested is no fun, especially if you haven't done anything. Then you have the joyful experience of defending yourself before said jury, and when you lose because the copyright owners have unlimited funds and you do not, you're life is thoroughly trashed. That's even more true when you're fighting for your rights in a criminal court, versus a civil one.
So be very, very careful of accepting any newfound powers our government arrogates to itself, especially those granted at the behest of the private sector.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Waste of my tax dollars. (Score:5, Informative)
Because that's how you gain power. By making criminals of your subjects, you gain power over them - the power to threaten them with fines, imprisonment, or death. How can your government control you if you've broken no law? It can't -- at least, not reliably -- so it makes up laws that are impossible to follow or interpret, and in so doing, forces us to jump through its hoops to avoid imprisonment. It doesn't matter whether they catch all the "criminals", only that they catch enough to make examples of. Eventually, you find yourself complying, if for no other reason than that you're afraid that someday you might be picked as the "example".
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens' What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
And for those who automatically reject everything Rand wrote (because they don't like some of what Rand wrote), how about a former Attorney General and US Supreme Court Justice?
"With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him." - Robert H. Jackson [slashdot.org], 1940
And then your Federal overlords would threaten to withhold highway funding, and your state legislature would cave.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What are you, stupid? They're not exempt from the laws; they're exempt from the enforcement. In other words, they decide who gets investigated, so they simply decide that it won't be them!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They are exempted, as it is the case in Australia: hundreds of police officers in South Australia were caught with pirated movies on their computers, but they will not be prosecuted because "the ab [torrentfreak.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You can't, it has never happened.
Copyright infringement is a civil matter, not a criminal offense.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
===================
545 People
By Charlie Reese --
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and