New "Intellectual Property Protection" law enacted.

[NatCh]

President Bush Signs "PRO-IP" Bill Into Law

The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act of 2007 is now officially the law of the land. It creates a "IP Czar" ('cause "czars" have worked out so well, historically, apparently) chosen by the Senate and reporting directly to the President, forms a brand new division of the Department of Justice for him or her to be Czar over, specifically for the purpose of protecting intellectual property, and defines penalties for copyright infringement.

The usual supporters are saying the usual sorts of things: that it'll protect content creators, and reduce infringement. The usual opponents are saying their usual things, that copyright laws are already stacked massively in favor corporations and against consumers. But I do think it's interesting to note that this is apparently a less severe version from what was originally opposed, evidently the DOJ objected to it on the grounds that it could put them in the position of becoming de facto free legal support for even extremely well-heeled copyright holders (i.e. the RIAA).

Personally, I find myself wondering if this is really the best use of Federal resources at this particular point in time. Surely we have enough to juggle without adding a new legal bureaucracy to the mix?

Source: PC World, and NewsOxy.com.

[RickyMaveety]

Oh ... lovely .... our tax dollars at work. Another layer of crap in the sewer that is our federal government.

[Amalthia]

Great waste of tax money.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Oh ... lovely .... our tax dollars at work. Another layer of crap in the sewer that is our federal government.

Well said, RM.

[digitalzen]

Originally Posted by NatCh

President Bush Signs "PRO-IP" Bill Into Law

The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act of 2007 is now officially the law of the land. It creates a "IP Czar" ('cause "czars" have worked out so well, historically, apparently) chosen by the Senate and reporting directly to the President, forms a brand new division of the Department of Justice for him or her to be Czar over, specifically for the purpose of protecting intellectual property, and defines penalties for copyright infringement.

The usual supporters are saying the usual sorts of things: that it'll protect content creators, and reduce infringement. The usual opponents are saying their usual things, that copyright laws are already stacked massively in favor corporations and against consumers. But I do think it's interesting to note that this is apparently a less severe version from what was originally opposed, evidently the DOJ objected to it on the grounds that it could put them in the position of becoming de facto free legal support for even extremely well-heeled copyright holders (i.e. the RIAA).

Personally, I find myself wondering if this is really the best use of Federal resources at this particular point in time. Surely we have enough to juggle without adding a new legal bureaucracy to the mix?

Source: PC World, and NewsOxy.com.

Interesting...I wonder how much more leverage this will give the government in terms of cracking down on illegal downloaders?

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by digitalzen

Interesting...I wonder how much more leverage this will give the government in terms of cracking down on illegal downloaders?

Substitute "RIAA" for "government" in that sentence, and we'd be wondering the same thing.

[Dave Berk]

Will this have any impact on us who don't happen to live in the states?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by NatCh

Substitute "RIAA" for "government" in that sentence, and we'd be wondering the same thing.

I expect this will give the RIAA a legal (gov't) pipeline to have things done that they couldn't get done as private (sic) citizens. . .

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by NatCh

President Bush Signs "PRO-IP" Bill Into Law

The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act of 2007 is now officially the law of the land. It creates a "IP Czar" ('cause "czars" have worked out so well, historically, apparently) chosen by the Senate and reporting directly to the President, forms a brand new division of the Department of Justice for him or her to be Czar over, specifically for the purpose of protecting intellectual property, and defines penalties for copyright infringement.

The usual supporters are saying the usual sorts of things: that it'll protect content creators, and reduce infringement. The usual opponents are saying their usual things, that copyright laws are already stacked massively in favor corporations and against consumers. But I do think it's interesting to note that this is apparently a less severe version from what was originally opposed, evidently the DOJ objected to it on the grounds that it could put them in the position of becoming de facto free legal support for even extremely well-heeled copyright holders (i.e. the RIAA).

Personally, I find myself wondering if this is really the best use of Federal resources at this particular point in time. Surely we have enough to juggle without adding a new legal bureaucracy to the mix?

Source: PC World, and NewsOxy.com.

I'm always amazed at the naifs and waifs of the world who continue to fall for the "it's not as bad as what we thought they'd enact" fraud. Of *COURSE* it's not as bad. But now that it's 'on the books', they'll be extending and revising it right up to TWICE as nasty!

Derek

[RobbieClarken]

I bet he'll be just as effective as the Drug Czar: we'll see no change (or more likely an increase) in piracy while plenty of minor "offenders" are persecuted and more and more civil liberties are whittled away.

Here is the best bit of the law:

Originally Posted by Home Theater Mag

The new law contains other provisions that are just plain scary. For instance, the Justice Department could seize and auction off any computer or network hardware involved in a copyright crime, as it does with the property of drug kingpins—even if the owner is not found guilty of a crime.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by Dave Berk

Will this have any impact on us who don't happen to live in the states?

I think it's unlikely. Nearly as I can tell, the dominant theory here seems to be that the rest of the world gets the rights guaranteed in our Constitution, but that we're should be constrained by the laws of the rest of the world ... regardless of whether said laws would pass a constitutionality test here or not.

[RWood]

Back in its hey-day the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was responsible for the rates charged for interstate transport of goods. Those were days of fixed transport rates and regulated carriers. While the public posture was one of protecting the consumer from being overcharged by trucking companies, the reality was that most of the enforcement actions were against companies cutting their rates to win a little bit more business. It seems that that was a no-no. I expect no less sanity this time around.

Does it apply outside the US? I remember reading that there was a lot of talk that the raid on Pirate Bay was carried out under pressure from the US. How many other countries have enacted laws that resemble parts of the US DMCA?

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by RWood

Back in its hey-day the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was responsible for the rates charged for interstate transport of goods. Those were days of fixed transport rates and regulated carriers. While the public posture was one of protecting the consumer from being overcharged by trucking companies, the reality was that most of the enforcement actions were against companies cutting their rates to win a little bit more business. It seems that that was a no-no. I expect no less sanity this time around.

The keyword above is "regulated". Interstate truckers were part of conferences, conferences published rates, and all member companies were expected to abide by them. The same regulation applied to airlines.

Remove the regulation, allow companies to set prices to gain business, and the result is predictable. Sooner or later, you get two or perhaps three large dominant players in any particular market, and an assortment of smaller companies in specialized niches. Everybody else either gets acquired or exits the business.

Is what we have now an improvement over the old regulated days? I'm not sure.
______
Dennis

[Milarepa]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Oh ... lovely .... our tax dollars at work. Another layer of crap in the sewer that is our federal government.

Well said RM! I have nothing to add.

[gwynevans]

Originally Posted by Dave Berk

Will this have any impact on us who don't happen to live in the states?

I expect so, what with this sort of track record:

• "US says it has right to kidnap British citizens"
• "Terror law puts Britons at risk of surveillance by US agents"