Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Media Music Your Rights Online

CCIA Calls Copyright Wiretaps 'Hollywood's PATRIOT Act' 150

Posted by Soulskill from the otherwise-the-terrists-win dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Ars is reporting that the CCIA, a trade group representing companies like AMD, Facebook, Oracle, Yahoo, Google and Microsoft, is calling the copyright wiretaps requested by the IP Czar 'Hollywood's PATRIOT Act.' For those who don't remember, IP Czar Victoria Espinel recently wrote a report calling for more charges of felony copyright infringement under the NET Act, as well as felony charges for illegal web streaming, authorization for the use of wiretaps in going after copyright infringement cases, and several other measures. In short, this means that the copyright cops are coming online."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CCIA Calls Copyright Wiretaps 'Hollywood's PATRIOT Act' More

CCIA Calls Copyright Wiretaps 'Hollywood's PATRIOT Act'

Comments Filter:

  • Wow (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    What a c*nt.

  • Wise move? (Score:3)

    by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Friday March 18, 2011 @01:15PM (#35532512) Homepage

    The PATRIOT act allegedly protects the US against religious terrorists. Hollywood's PATRIOT act allegedly protects the US against economic terrorists aka pirates. I'm not so sure claiming that is a valid comparison is a good strategy....

    • Very allegedly.

    • Re:Wise move? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cpu6502 ( 1960974 ) on Friday March 18, 2011 @01:21PM (#35532616)

      Most people realize the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) act sucks, due to how it's used to spy on innocent americans. Likewise this wiretapping to catch people downloading songs, sucks.

      • Re:Wise move? (Score:4, Informative)

        by morgauxo ( 974071 ) on Friday March 18, 2011 @01:42PM (#35533102)
        Most people here on Slashdot, far removed from the ignorant masses realize.... There fixed that for you
        • I just keep having trouble with the realization that I have lived through the largest destruction of personal liberty (and personal dignity) in US history. I have listened to well read, college educated people who wholeheartedly support suppression of very clearly 1st amendment supported freedom of speech because the message bothers them.

          This entwined with the juggernaut of corporate rights steamrolling over personal rights just because lobbyists write the laws, lobby money pays for the law makers, and pe
          • You're not alone. Question is, what are you going to do about it? Bend over and take it or fight it tooth and nail? Now is the time to choose, while you still can.

            "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

            • You're not alone. Question is, what are you going to do about it? Bend over and take it or fight it tooth and nail? Now is the time to choose, while you still can.

              If you fight it tooth and nail, you'll just break your teeth and wear out your nails. The age of freedom is over; it has neither champion nor significant constituency.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by symbolic ( 11752 )

                BS. The one true freedom that people fail to realize, and fail to use, is the freedom to say "no," as in, "Thanks for the crappy stuff you continually produce, but no - keep it. And I'll keep my money."

                • BS. The one true freedom that people fail to realize, and fail to use, is the freedom to say "no," as in, "Thanks for the crappy stuff you continually produce, but no - keep it. And I'll keep my money."

                  Inconveniences you and causes them no significant harm. In fact, as we know, the xxAAs use any sales drop as evidence of piracy and thus reason for passing more oppressive laws. Doesn't matter how much of their stuff I fail to buy or pirate, I'm still subject to the laws.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by symbolic ( 11752 )

                    I hear those argument all the time - I don't buy it. Your position has been used as an unfortunate justification to continue escalating this war on freedom. If people would just let the market work, it will. The only factor that has had a major impact is the fact that people can walk away with copies of something with comparatively little effort - many have the mistaken belief that this affords them a level of entitlement that simply doesn't exist.

                    • I hear those argument all the time - I don't buy it. Your position has been used as an unfortunate justification to continue escalating this war on freedom. If people would just let the market work, it will.

                      The people who are escalating the war on freedom and not letting the market work are not those holding my position. They are the music and movie industry people and their pet legislators who are making these laws. If tomorrow, everyone who cared about these issues stopped buying anything from those com

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by symbolic ( 11752 )

                      If tomorrow, everyone who cared about these issues stopped buying anything from those companies, and stopped copying their products as well, all that would change is they'd use the slight dip in sales to bolster their arguments about piracy

                      I've heard that argument too - while this may happen initially (and for good reason), there will be a point at which the false piracy claims can no longer be rationally justified. It is part of a corrective process. Nothing can change if the piracy doesn't stop.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sznupi ( 719324 )
            Or you can just face how it was a (self-marvel kind of) myth all along.

          • I just keep having trouble with the realization that I have lived through the largest destruction of personal liberty (and personal dignity) in US history.

            Perhaps that's because, unless you are approximately 200 years old, you haven't.

            Have you or anyone you know ever been forced into a one-sided labor contract for a term of years? [wikipedia.org]
            Have you or anyone you know ever actually been forced into servitude and treated as the property of another person? [wikipedia.org]
            Have you or anyone you know ever been denied the right to vote based on your sex? [wikipedia.org]
            Have you or anyone you know ever been forced by law to undergo surgical sterilization [wikipedia.org]based on a mental or physical handicap, ethni

        • I think that's just about to change.

          The "heartland" of America gets its news ... wait for it ... from the plot stories of their TV shows. So when entire episodes are starting to feature the Homeland Security doings, Mr. & Ms Viewer are just about to say "wait, they're doing that?"

          • I've noticed the TSA getting lampooned a lot (e.g. "Cat people, dog people" "We all look the same way nude." "Good point") -- and have seen some less than flattering portrayals of Fatherland^W Homeland Security on popular TV. Now this could be all part of a Hollywood conspiracy to let the hoi polloi blow off some steam with comedy, but it could also be a reflection of public opinion tilting against the insidious creeping fascism that threatens to blanket us in the absence of popular resistance.

            • I'll go further.

              I'l leave it as an exercise which way the causal sequence runs, but I feel that such tv episodes are a profound mechanism for social processing. While geeks can do it within a few weeks after reading a couple of SF stories or novels, it seems to take a many years for society as a whole to get there. Arguably it took twenty years for society to really process sexuality issues.

              Now if "we're taking on safety vs security", I'd start the clock at 9-11 and say we're half way there at the 10th anni

        • A college teacher of computer science came to my law office, back in the good old days of DOS 5.0, so I asked him to take a look at our computer. When a C prompt came up, he said "I see you're using C language." I thought he was kidding or making fun of me. He may have been an expert at something but it did not include personal computers or how to set up and use them in a law office. I'm a lawyer, not a computer scientist or software engineer, and came to the computer revolution late in the 80s.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Kjella ( 173770 )

        Really? [usnews.com]

        35-57% support it, they don't list a total figure or the proportion of the three but over 40% is likely. And that is now, if you ask "Was passing the PATRIOT act after 9/11 the right thing to do?" I think you'd find that the general public don't exactly consider it a mistake.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Sounds like a valid comparison to me; both fuck over the citizenry while doing nothing about the real problem.

      • "The real problem"? I'm sorry, but you will need to clarify. I am still uncertain there is even a problem at all outside of the crap that the **AA's are pulling. They make a LOT of money. They have always made a LOT of money. Their business have never NOT made a LOT of money. They simply have nothing to be worried about. It's all pure greed and malice.

        • Re:Wise move? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anthony Mouse ( 1927662 ) on Friday March 18, 2011 @04:24PM (#35535670)

          No, see, there is a problem. The problem is that record companies and movie studios are good at distributing things in record stores and movie theaters, whereas companies like Apple, Amazon and Netflix are good at distributing things on the Internet. That means once everything is being distributed over the Internet, there is no more need for a record label as an intermediary -- the artist pays for some studio time, which is getting less expensive all the time, makes a digital recording and puts it for sale on iTunes without a record label. A bunch of famous actors get together with a big name director, fund the picture out of their own pockets or with venture capital, put it streaming on Netflix and sell DVDs on Amazon and cut out the studios.

          If the incumbent middle men haven't established dominance over Internet distribution and legislated all the alternatives out of existence by the time people stop buying CDs and DVDs at Wal-mart, they're going to have to face competing distributors shaving down their margins and eroding their market share. That's a very serious problem for them, and that's what all of this is really about.

    • One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, so it's exactly the same.

    • I was hoping it was written to protect us from the Mel Gibson movie, The Patriot.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by EdIII ( 1114411 )

      Only the far right fundamentalists actually equate the PATRIOT act with something positive. I am really not trying to be biased here, or introduce unwanted vitriol or divisiveness (like I need to add more), but the people who think the PATRIOT act is a good thing are the same people who have blind faith in the US government, complete denial that the America can do anything wrong, and that we should have complete and utter trust in law enforcement in general. They also in general, take the bible to be the

  • Good luck with that... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    See, what you don't understand is that an open internet has allowed businesses to succeed and generate revenue in new ways. These businesses have a vested interest in keeping the internet open. It just so happens that an open internet also serves piracy as well.

    So you have a choice: go back to 1990, and kill the web... killing piracy, but also killing all the businesses that now are based on web technologies (to include MSFT, GOOG, AAPL, etc)... OR... evolve.

    • 'understand' ? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by unity100 ( 970058 ) on Friday March 18, 2011 @01:26PM (#35532754) Homepage Journal
      they understand. they understand very well that they dont want anyone other than themselves to succeed, no businesses competing them, customers feeding off their hand, on the terms they want them to.

      and your explanation of the fundamentals of internet's success does not mean shit to them, neither they care - they want to have it, and you under their control.

      explanations and talk will not do any good. you need to act, if you want to defend your interests.
      • But what can one legally do? I wish there was a career path or something that I could do to stop this and similar abuses of power by the government, but short of spending 30 years entrenching myself in the system (at which point I'm sure the economic benefits of prolonging corruption will outweigh any lasting moral compulsions not to) to right some minor wrongs, what can a citizen do? Sadly, I think nothing. Most people I speak to about their rights either don't understand what the rights are, or why we nee

        • "But what can one legally do?"

          The time for legality is over, unfortunately public ignorance, lack of intelligence and apathy is the issue.

        • "...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." - Declaration of Independence

          The career path you're looking for is "revolutionary."

  • Meanwhile in hell... (Score:3)

    by Drakkenmensch ( 1255800 ) on Friday March 18, 2011 @01:29PM (#35532820)
    Joseph McCarthy is doing a happy jig.

    • McCarthy was just a small piece of the puzzle. The House Un-american Activities Committee was the main power, and it was run by Democrats from 1945 to 1959. The Demo-run HUAC was also the source of the infamous Hollywood blacklist.

      • I love how everything can be turned into a Dems vs. Repubs arguments. No wait, that other thing. Loathe.

        Doesn't anyone else get that the Red vs. Blue thing is just a distraction from what's actually happening in government?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by FatSean ( 18753 )

        Small piece you say? Bi-partisan committee I say. And I see you left out the membership ratios of similar committed from 1918-1944 :)

        Say, you must be one of commodore64_love's sockpuppets. Hope you've got a friend in Afghanistan!

  • Here is what a friend told me (note he voted for Obama, and says he'd happily do it again). Not a direct quote.

    The link is hysteria and not much detail. The Napster already establish free sharing of copyright material is a violation of copyright law. It's inconvenient if we want free stuff, but I don't see any legal basis that we should get free stuff."

    • One of the big issues is that is (currently, in the vast majority of cases) a civil matter. The two parties involved pay for it.

      If it's criminal, your tax dollars are going to be increasingly used to pay for copyright enforcement that the copyright owner doesn't want to pay for. If they don't want to pay for it, why should I? Why should you?

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday March 18, 2011 @01:43PM (#35533114)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Just because a trade group has lobbying money, shouldn't mean that they get to play with society's rules.

      While I agree with you, the sad fact is that lobbying money is pretty much the only thing that allows one to play with society's rules.

    • I completely agree with that should be how the legal system should work. It would mean that other laws are struck down though like environmental damage because it wouldn't cause direct harm. It is tricky where to draw the line. What benefits society to the greatest extent would definitely be the best, but again is hard to define. Who has the most money just simply does not work. I would say the best treatment would be to stop supporting these organizations with your money and your interest. Look for free mu

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      US prisons are now private companies. It's in their interest to have their buddy corporatocracies put as many people behind bars as possible. It only costs something like $200k/year to keep a black kid locked up, who's done nothing more than caught smoking pot. Tax dollars from us to our corporate overlords.

      Obama was put in power by the media, they're merely calling in all the favors.

    • 1. Fraud and other white-collar crimes are estimated to divert about 6% of gross revenue. That's more than $700 billion a year in the U.S. , or the equivalent of the U.S. Department of Defense's annual budget.

      2. Economic damage is almost never 100% recoverable, particularly in criminal cases. Did Enron shareholders get made whole?

      3. White-collar crimes affects people as much as violent crime, although conventional constructions tend to focus on violent crime. Would you rather be robbed once, or

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday March 18, 2011 @01:46PM (#35533184)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by gknoy ( 899301 )

      It's far better to shoot the thieves with a video camera and then use the video evidence to apprehend them later. Physical possessions can (mostly) be replaced. Of course, if they threaten you with bodily harm for filming them ....

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pem ( 1013437 )
        Uh huh. If they're stealing all your stuff at gunpoint, why are they going to let you keep the video camera?

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward
          If they are stealing your stuff at gunpoint then why are they going to let you open your gun safe, remove the trigger lock, load your weapon, and fire it on them?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gknoy ( 899301 )

          If they're stealing your stuff at gunpoint, you let them take it, and offer them cookies. Better than dead, and you have insurance. If they aren't waving guns at you, you have no reason to point a gun at THEM (except in very few jurisdictions where lethal force is OK to use to stop crimes against property, rather than people). Moreover, it's much more legal (I assume in most places) to videotape someone than to shoot them (or threaten to shoot them).

      • Thieves can (mostly) be replaced as well.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          So why do our politicians remain in office for so long?

      • It's far better to shoot the thieves with a video camera and then use the video evidence to apprehend them later. Physical possessions can (mostly) be replaced. Of course, if they threaten you with bodily harm for filming them ....

        I really hope you're trolling or being sarcastic. Unfortunately, since there are quite a few people who believe as you do, I will offer my response. I don't expect you to agree--and that's the beauty of the world we live in--but this is how I believe.

        If you're at home when an arme

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gknoy ( 899301 )

          The original poster never said that the thieves were armed, merely that they were loading your stuff into a large truck. (Heck, masquerading as movers would be a pretty ballsy but probably effective con: your neighbors might never realize it wasn't for real.)

          My point was that if you're not being physically threatened, it's better to gather evidence than to dispense vigilante justice. If you ARE being threatened, respond with necessary force to preserve your life and others. I agree wholeheartedly about the

    • In only two states in the Union are you legally secure in pointing a loaded weapon at someone you catch in the act of robbing you.

      For the record, which states are they? Texas must be one and the other?

    • To be honest, within the next hundred years I'm expecting the USA will have another revolution, at least if this shit keeps up.

    • This is because large companies have more money than you and therefore have more rights than you. This is how the world works today.

  • I don't know who the dumbass who first came up with 'czar' is, but I'd sure like to kick his ass. Geeks are very prone to linguistic fetishes. There's nothing romantic about a person in charge of some organisation. And if, somehow, that person has complete and unquestionable authority over something, simply calling him/her a 'czar' won't help. Changing the laws will.

    Excuse my digression.

    • I kind of like the term czar. Recall that a Czar was considered by the West (at the time) to be an out of touch, despotic ruler of a backward country. I think that description fits the roles that it is being applied to quite nicely.

      Btw, isn't there a clause in the constitution somewhere that says, "no citizen of the US shall bear a title?"

    • I don't know who the dumbass who first came up with 'czar' is, but I'd sure like to kick his ass.

      In its modern sense, that would be either Gaius Julius or Gaius Octavius Thurinus (later Augustus). And they've been dead for a while, but either one could have kicked your ass 6 ways from Sunday.

  • When the XXAA upgrade copyright infringement to a felony (to take the enforcement out of the civil court system and the cost out of the XXAA pocket and into ours.) we can be sorta like the old country. They had debtors prisons, we can have copyright prisons. (Maybe they will ship us off to Africa, I think Australia will have the same laws as us when the XXAA can arrange it.)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cpghost ( 719344 )
      In many countries, thanks to intense US bullying of the last 10 years, copyright infringement is already a felony. What goes around, comes around.

  • Wiretapping for IP Crimes would spark revolution (Score:3, Insightful)

    by inshreds ( 1813596 ) on Friday March 18, 2011 @01:57PM (#35533364)
    By RTFA and clicking through, it quotes, "Wiretap authority for these intellectual property crimes, subject to the existing legal protections that apply to wiretaps for other types of crimes, would assist US law enforcement agencies to effectively investigate those offenses, including targeting organized crime and the leaders and organizers of criminal enterprises," says the new whitepaper.

    If violation of civil liberties extends to wiretapping for suspected IP violations, I predict that many now docile citizens will rise up and wage revolution, both underground and in high court. In the US at least, the (Constitutional 4th Amendment) guards against unreasonable search and seizure by requiring law enforcement to present "reasonable cause" to a judge in order to obtain a warrant. Wiretapping without a warrant is a clear violation of these 4th Amendment rights. I for one, would happy donate to the legal fight to protect these rights. Furthermore, legions of underground resistance will surely fight back as well. The foundations of democracy can only be threatened so far before the people decide enough is enough.

    • Re:Wiretapping for IP Crimes would spark revolutio (Score:4, Insightful)

      by element-o.p. ( 939033 ) on Friday March 18, 2011 @02:12PM (#35533684) Homepage

      If violation of civil liberties extends to wiretapping for suspected IP violations, I predict that many now docile citizens will rise up and wage revolution, both underground and in high court....The foundations of democracy can only be threatened so far before the people decide enough is enough.

      Wanna bet? The average Joe isn't going to understand the ramifications of undermining the 4th Amendment (see what's going on in our airports right now, if you don't believe me). There will be no uprising because most Americans won't give a rip as long as they can still watch American Idol and eat at McDonalds while driving their 10 gallons/mile (no, that's not a typo) suburban assault^Wutility vehicle. You and I might get in a tizzy about this, but the rank-and-file won't care until/unless it affects them.

    • I hate to sound like a troll, but please, revolution? It's not going to happen. If you download a song, you will be painted as some evil criminal, vilified and justly hounded down in the public's eye. This bit about piracy is just a farce to implement their own draconian control measures. The Internet is too much freedom for the masses in their eyes. They need more control. You need controlled. It's for your own good. It's for the children.

      • I don't know, $100/barrel (or more) might make the amount of expendable income average families have suddenly dissappear. Then realisation of how much everything else costs should hit home. It'll take alot longer and alot more before anything happens in the U$A, but to quote a certain Smith: "It is inevitable". I'm not sure how printing more money can fix that.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ryants ( 310088 )

      I predict that many now docile citizens will rise up and wage revolution, both underground and in high court.

      Oh wait, you were serious. Let me laugh even harder.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dbet ( 1607261 )
      You don't need "revolution", only violence.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Thuktun ( 221615 )

      If violation of civil liberties extends to wiretapping for suspected IP violations, I predict that many now docile citizens will rise up and wage revolution, both underground and in high court.

      Only if it prevents them from TIVOing the newest episode of "Three and a Half Lost Heroes of Beverly Hills".

  • Like an industrial trade group, wants to wire tap me, I reserve the privilege to sue them in open court (the US) and (in some countries) to hire hit men to to assassinate their corporate members. And in the EU to get arrest warrants issued for them.

    Just because you (MPAA, RIAA) are "safely" protected by the bought and paid for US government does not protect you anyplace else!

  • Really, it can't be all that bad...

    ...can it?

  • How's all that hopey changey doing for you?

  • Hollywood is a *business* (or collection of businesses). They aren't ALLOWED a "patriot act". What's next, questioning our patriotism if we don't go to their movies?

  • The big companies/RIAA/MPAA pushing for stricter copyright enforcement, felony charges for copyright violators, etc. are wrong.

    So wrong, in fact, it might just be enough to save us from them.

    It was one thing when they targeted poor college students on bittorrent. How many average Americans or other companies are going to stand up for them? It was a great way for the RIAA, for instance, to make a killing. (Off of creative content they never created, by the way -- what's the point of copyright anyway?)

    But thi

  • What isn't mentioned, is how a member of Congress grilled this new IP "czar" (how I hate that term) about how they bungled the child pornography raid and took down more than 84,000 innocent websites, replacing them with a page that said they had been taken down for child pornography! Talk about class-action material for suing the government!

    The Congresswoman made the Czar look like an idiot in front of everyone else. Not to mention that the Czar was chastised for acting illegally in that an other matters

  • Patriot Act + Net Patriot Act = Welcome to the 4th Reich Nazi America, imperialism, totalitarianism, lost of FREEDOMS!

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close