[governance] Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Copyright Cops

Mon Sep 15 02:09:09 EDT 2008

Dear Jeffrey and All,

[longish, w/current gmail spellcheck suspended].].

Thanks for the further comments, and here is a pro tem reflection upon them:

This is such a compelling topic; guide us further. 

I make no claim, and even assert 'minus current comprehension' of the current IP field in particular, and know there are experts here we may hear from with delight and instructiveness.  

But about balancing or at least accommodating diverse interests, I do feel passionately, and express concern that moves to prevent or remedy apparent 'intrusiveness' by one entity upon another's turf must be guarded against creating other and even more serious hence unacceptable intrusions in the process. 

Here, where and when contemplated 'protections' are said to follow entry and seizure of property (and perhaps especially in the name of protecting property albeit other property) one might suggest that much offended would be 'the right to be left alone,' and so far following the link (more info please!) one sees a plausibly noble effort toward protections for records seized, but plausibly only after the bridge has been breached  ("The court shall enter an appropriate  protective order with respect to discovery by the applicant of any records that have been seized.") 

Without presuming to discuss the recording industry's interest in such seizures, and in the context e.g. of say U.S. Constitution protections regarding search and seizure, I was linked in this inquiry to (IP Bill) HR 4279 and hence to section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug 2 Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 – 21, 3 U.S.C. 853 (ldmf-note: again, this is just jointly a first sortie; if you wish to provide some other links that will be great).

Et voila! One expected 'probable cause' to be the stated standard, and here 'tiz and as usual  - who are the deciders and what are the metrics -  that is a real meaty question.

"(f) Warrant of seizure 
The Government may request the issuance of a warrant authorizing the seizure of property subject to forfeiture under this section in the same manner as provided for a search warrant. If the court determines that there is probable cause to believe that the property to be seized would, in the event of conviction, be subject to forfeiture and that an order under subsection (e) of this section may not be sufficient to assure the availability of the property for forfeiture, the court shall issue a warrant authorizing the seizure of such property." 

So - If you have time and interest, your thoughts on the above will be interesting to read and react to.

I don't say this is all cut and dried' or these initial notes at all dispositive even on current musings, and would like in the future to discuss the matters of multistakeholder interests viewed in plurality (ref. my "Respectful Interfaces" Programme in the CCC/UN – Communications Coordination Committee For the U.N. (any faults herein are my own of course and not representative of an organization).  But for now it would be helpful just to establish whether 'probable cause' is indeed as glimpsed above the standard, suggesting something is more likely than not and beyond a 'reasonable suspicion' standard but short of 'clear and convincing' evidence (or cognates in different cultural contexts)"

'Cuz before they get to the machine they have to get into the building.  one supposes. <insert here a tentative paradoxical smilie symbol>.

And a slant-reference: When I spoke personally with the Robert Morris Judge decades back (my recall is that) he said he wished he hadn't gotten the "thorny" case & most pointedly, have to  consider the then rather or extremely novel matter criminal (but if still around, his Honor might dispute me on this recollection).  

And, facially,  has a "right to."

With best wishes, Linda.

On 9/14/08, Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Linda and all,
>
>   Good thinking!
>
>   Of course I am no fan of the RIAA or for that matter their
> bastard step child, the dreadful MPAA, and they are well
> aware of it!  And yet ICANN's indirect funding largely comes
> from paid lobbyist of these two disgraceful organizations, indirectly.
> They are the modern day equivalents of the Sheriff of Sherwood
> forest and his sleazy henchmen, IMO along with their ICANN
> allies, the sleazy IPC.  Yet I do fully understand that they have
> ligitimate membership protection interests to attend to, of which
> I, nor any of our members would hope the IGC would have
> any problem with.  It is the manner in which they go about exercising
> those duties and interests that I, and our members have significant
> differences with, this political maneuver not withstanding.
>
>   It is difficult for me to understand how the Judiciary committee
> could have approved such legislation for full consideration.  Perhaps
> it is because their PAC's and political campaigns are receiving
> copious donations for their re-election bids from these organizations?
> So much for principals, and years/decades of modern jurist prudence,
> if so, eh?  >:(
>
>   To borrow and slightly modify a phrase:  "Cry havoc, let loose
> the dogs of political war!"
>
> ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Dear Jeffrey,
>>
>> Thanks for this early heads-up.
>>
>> We should scamper over on the link and look for standards of putative
>> evidence triggering whatever takeovers of computers are contemplated.
>> Among other issues of course.
>>
>> Best wishes, Linda M F.
>>
>> On 9/12/08, Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > All,
>> >
>> >   Regarding rights, ( This one really bothers me ) see:
>> >
>> > "The Senate Judiciary Committee has
>> > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080911-committee-amends-approves-enormous-gift-to-big-content.html
>> >
>> > approved the EIPA (the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights
>> > Act of 2008), which would create copyright cops. And these cops would
>> > take over the RIAA's War on Sharing by filing civil lawsuits and using
>> > civil forfeiture laws to take any and all computers engaged in
>> > infringement. Worse, they would even seize computers (such as
>> > servers or database farms) that house the data of innocent people, and
>> > these people would not have any right to get their data back. At best
>> > the 'virtual bystanders' who happened to have data on a computer used
>> > for infringement could get a protective order saying that no one should
>> > go
>> > rummaging through their stuff. Perhaps the only good thing in the bill
>> > is that they've excluded DMCA circumvention from the list of grounds for
>> >
>> > seizure. So while the Senators believe this is needed to combat foreign
>> > copyright infringement cartels, it's entirely likely that innocent
>> > people will be harmed by this law."
>> >
>> > My notes:  Seems to me that sense the RIAA and the MPAA have
>> > been loosing cases all of the country, as have their counterparts in
>> > other countries, this legislation was borne from lobbying of those
>> > IP organizations and their members for extraordinary Rights, in that
>> > they cannot or will not protect their own IP rights in accordance
>> > with current law and available technology.
>> >
>> > Comments, thoughts, suggestions?
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
>> > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
>> >    Abraham Lincoln
>> >
>> > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
>> > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
>> >
>> > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
>> > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
>> > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
>> > United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
>> > ===============================================================
>> > Updated 1/26/04
>> > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
>> > div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
>> > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
>> > jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
>> > My Phone: 214-244-4827
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> >
>> > For all list information and functions, see:
>> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Individual Email.
>> For further I.D. (ref./only)
>> Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N.
>> CONGO Education Committee
>> Annual U.N. DPI NGO Conference Planning Committee & Sub-Committes.
>> ...
>> Other Affiliations on Request.
>
> Regards,
>
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
> "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
>    Abraham Lincoln
>
> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
> very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
>
> "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> ===============================================================
> Updated 1/26/04
> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
> div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
> ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
> jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
> My Phone: 214-244-4827
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance