Controversial Section of PRO-IP Act Cut

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Rep. Berman (D-CA) has removed the controversial section 104 from his PRO-IP Act. That section would have multiplied the already excessive statutory damages for infringement in the case of compilations, making the damages for infringing upon the copyrights of a single average CD rise into the millions of dollars. This change came after proponents of the amendment were unable to cite even one case where the statutory damages recovered were insufficient. But don't let the article fool you into thinking that the PRO-IP Act is no longer controversial now that this one section is gone, the act still creates copyright cops who are authorized to seize people's computers."

Good example.

This is a good example of the fact that both major parties play these games with our civil liberties. As much time as people spend bashing the Republican party over privacy invasion and big business backroom deals, it's good to remember that the Democrats play the same games every day. Perception is a funny thing.

How could statutory damages ever be insufficient?

How could statutory damages ever be insufficient when the copyright owner has the option of proving actual damages?

Re:How could statutory damages ever be insufficien

IANAL, but IMHO, and it may be soon to tell, given current circumstances, but notwithstanding alternate outcomes, that I have absolutely no idea how to respond to your question. But look at the silly monkey!

Just the latest in a long list of malfeasance ...

Berman should be forcibly removed from office for the things he's already done. They can take Howard Coble and Orrin Hatch along with him. We the People have no use for them.

Re:Just the latest in a long list of malfeasance .

We the People keep reelecting them. Blame California, North Carolina, and Utah. (and blame Canada)

WalMart

making the damages for infringing upon the copyrights of a single average CD rise into the millions of dollars.

...and yet, if you just physically steal one, no one cares near as much. Whatever floats their boat, I guess.

Re:WalMart

Of course. Physical theft hurts businesses, especially small ones. On the other hand, piracy threatens the control of the media giants. Who do you think has more lobbying power?

I remember

"Yes, Billy, it's true. The United States wasn't always a fascist dictatorship. Actually, the proper term is oligarchy, but I won't bore you with all that stuff now. Anyway, there was a time when the people in office actually cared, some more than others, about the ideals that made it a good place to live. And, no, there was no invasion. Our people just gave it all away, a little at a time, by always voting for politicians who promised to make the country a safe place for children and kittens. It's safe now, Billy...just as long as you do exactly as you're told."

Re:I remember

Our people just gave it all away, a little at a time, by always voting for politicians who promised to make the country a safe place for children and kittens

I know I'm replying to your rather flippant remark with something serious, but why are we doing this? The other democracies in the world seem to have veered in a more liberal direction (liberal, not by the American definition). What makes the Americans MORE susceptible to welcoming a tyranny with open arms? I would have thought it the opposite, being one of the most violently individualistic countries on earth.

The average American, it seems, is the epitomy of sheep, anti-education, anti-freedom, and pro-tyranny, and not just our tyranny, but the tyranny of everyone else too. How did this happen, for a large part our founding fathers were ideal freethinkers (minus Adams), and liberals (again in the non-modern American sense), but somehow we've turned into the modern Soviets. This confuses the hell out of me.

How the hell did Europe (and Canada) beat us at our own, original, game?

How did France, Canada, the Nether

Re:

Wish I could give you an answer. I'm Canadian, and I don't much like the direction my country is heading in at the moment, either.

I've forgotten what our Prime Minister looks like, it's been so long since he pulled his face out from between Bush's ass

Re:

This is no accident. There has been manipulation and paranoia based behavior control.

"We were attacked" "by evil terrorists" (the fact of who those "evil terrorists" actually are or whether it was some bullshit storybook conspiracy that completely falls ap

Re:

I don't think the current atmosphere is to blame, though it exasperated the situation. I came of age at the tail end of the cold war, and we were still ruled by the same fear as we are today (albeit more based in reality), In the 90's, after the end of t

This should be alarming

They're beginning to make compromises. With this controversial section removed, it's just that much closer to becoming a law, which is bad for everyone.

Re:Time for the old Dead Man's Switch

Last time I checked the burden of proof was on the prosecution. They may have fixed that recently, so I could be wrong.

Re:

When it comes to complying with a court order to turn over computer files, turning over encrypted computer files is not complying with the order. It's really not that hard.

Re:

The main point of TrueCrypt (as I understand it) being that it's impossible for the prosecution to provide any evidence that what they see isn't everything you've got. No evidence you aren't complying = no leg to stand on.

Me? I'd keep anything "they" ar

Re:

No one. But you can easily claim that, with all the various laws on the books, including laws that haven't been examined in years, that you could breaking laws you don't even know about. Hence, pleading the fifth.

Re:Time for the old Dead Man's Switch

Passwords, pass phrases and keys are, for better or worse, considered to be protected by the 5th amendment.

Unless law enforcement or the copyright holder can crack the security on it, there is no way that they can compel a person to hand over the files at this point.

Re:Time for the old Dead Man's Switch

Do you have any case law to back this up or are you just talking out of your ass? Seriously, the courts see it no different to requiring you to hand over the keys to a filing cabinet. You're free to refuse, at which time you are in contempt of court and will be spending the remainder of your life in jail, except for every 30 days, when you will be brought before the judge to be asked if you are now ready to hand over the keys.

or the copyright holder

Huh? What do you think we're talking about?

Re:Time for the old Dead Man's Switch

http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9834495-38.html [news.com]

So yes, case law does back it up.

Re:Time for the old Dead Man's Switch

No, he's informed. What's your excuse?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org]

"The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the right against self-incrimination applies whether the witness is in Federal or state court (see Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964)), and whether the proceeding itself is criminal or civil (see McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924))."

And more specifically,

http://www.sorrelsudashen.com/papers/Fifth_Amendment_Right_Against_Self_Incrimination_in_Civil_Cases.pdf [sorrelsudashen.com] (pdf)

McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924) Privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment "applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it."

If copyright violation didn't have a criminal component to it, you might be right. But it does, particularly since the DMCA specifically criminalized copyright violations of digital material.

Re:

Testimony, not evidence. Consider that you can be compelled to give a blood sample for DNA evidence. They can even arrest and restrain you and forcible extract the blood. This is not considered self incrimination by the court. A password is not testimony,

Re:Copyright Cops Maintaining an environment of fe

Fear is the Antichrist

I thought fear was the mind-killer.

Re:War on Copyright

The sad thing is, that 1% of the population is already in jail. The highest incarceration rate in the world. But we think were safer. Do you think a 10-fold increase in people in jail will lead to an overhaul of the system, or just become a nice way to ensure lots of jobs as Prison Guards for the local economies?

Re:War on Copyright

1% of adults, not of the general population. Not that it affect your point.