The Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007

[grandpa]

Tech news blog - Gonzales proposes new crime: 'Attempted' copyright infringement | CNET News.com The IPPA would, for instance: * Criminalize "attempting" to infringe copyright. Federal law currently punishes not-for-profit copyright infringement with between 1 and 10 years in prison, but there has to be actual infringement that takes place. The IPPA would eliminate that requirement. (The Justice Department's summary of the legislation says: "It is a general tenet of the criminal law that those who attempt to commit a crime but do not complete it are as morally culpable as those who succeed in doing so.") * Create a new crime of life imprisonment for using pirated software. Anyone using counterfeit products who "recklessly causes or attempts to cause death" can be imprisoned for life. During a conference call, Justice Department officials gave the example of a hospital using pirated software instead of paying for it. * Permit more wiretaps for piracy investigations. Wiretaps would be authorized for investigations of Americans who are "attempting" to infringe copyrights. * Allow computers to be seized more readily. Specifically, property such as a PC "intended to be used in any manner" to commit a copyright crime would be subject to forfeiture, including civil asset forfeiture. Civil asset forfeiture has become popular among police agencies in drug cases as a way to gain additional revenue, and it is problematic and controversial. * Increase penalties for violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's anticircumvention regulations. Criminal violations are currently punished by jail times of up to 10 years and fines of up to $1 million. The IPPA would add forfeiture penalties. * Add penalties for "intended" copyright crimes. Certain copyright crimes currently require someone to commit the "distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period of at least 10 copies" valued at more than $2,500. The IPPA would insert a new prohibition: actions that were "intended to consist of" distribution.

So what do you guys think? Is this overt tyranny or what?

Grandpa h.

[Milton Bradley]

Reading the words, I thought, yep, this is clearly authoritarian. Then I noticed who is proposing it, and all I can do is nod in agreement.


Gonzales is almost a bad a guy as the one who appointed him.

[Slevin57]

I think it's pretty clear what organization is pushing this though..

[fushigi]

If you ask me, this act doesn't go far enough. We need to go ahead and have all officials from Microsoft, the RIAA, and the MPAA deputized as honorary senior FBI personnel while we're at it, give them top security clearance and unconditional immunity from any criminal or civil statute while we're at it.

Dammit, when are Americans going to realize that we don't the US--our privilege to be American exists at the pleasure of the corporations that design products we need!

[grandpa]

Quote by: fushigi If you ask me, this act doesn't go far enough. We need to go ahead and have all officials from Microsoft, the RIAA, and the MPAA deputized as honorary senior FBI personnel while we're at it, give them top security clearance and unconditional immunity from any criminal or civil statute while we're at it.

Constant debate can really wear on me. But I knew this would be one of those threads where hardly anyone would oppose my position. Clearly, we're dealing with an increasingly privatized high command. Given this kind of mindset, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn of "illegal downloaders" getting baptized by fire courtesy of some purchased FBI agents.

The intent of such legislation is about as clear as that of the "oil-for-food program."

Grandpa h.