Bush signs PRO-IP Act into law.

In a bid to avoid the lowest presidential approval rating in 70 years*, President Bush signed the PRO-IP Act into law today. While not quite on par with, say, an ultimate solution to the world economic crisis, the law will create new jobs, er, one new job: The Intellectual Property Czar.

Backed by the RIAA and MPAA, the PRO-IP Act has drawn criticism for its potential for extreme punishment. In its proposed state, the act could grant the government permission to seize all computers and compatible devices from a home if a single, pirated MP3 was discovered on one of the machines. So, about that approval rating ...

For a complete analysis of the PRO-IP Act as it applies to gaming, check out the latest LGJ column! (http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/10/lgj-the-pro-ip-act-and-gaming/)


Article: http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/13/bush-signs-pro-ip-act-into-law/

Hmmm...I'm starting to wonder... What happens when you combine draconian regulations with overly liberal gun rights?

I think you need to look up the definition of 'draconian' again, Cos...

as to Jager's comment, if you got the logic that is pro this act...don't come to Canada.

oh boo-hoo, i wont be able to STEAL music any more, boo-hoo


grow up and pay for things like an adult. if you steal music, and that's what music piracy is, then you reap what you sow.

Gshlecc wrote:oh boo-hoo, i wont be able to STEAL music any more, boo-hoo


grow up and pay for things like an adult. if you steal music, and that's what music piracy is, then you reap what you sow.

I actually agree with this. :P I have a roommate that downloads music all the time. If he hears a song he really likes on TV, he goes to the Internet right away and downloads a copy. I asked him one day why he just didn't go to iTunes or Amazon and purchase a $0.99 song - he replied with "because I don't want to spend money."

I don't know - stuff like that really irks me. I mean come on. Really. Just pay the damn 99 cents.

I'd be in the right mind to turn him in. :P

My problem is not the protection of intellectual property.  My problem with these pieces of legislation relates to their flaws and oversights.  In the case Cosmic cites here, I think we should all be concerned about the ability of authorities to seize all electronics equipment of one illegal item is found.  In Canada, our bill C-61 (not C-40), based off of your laws, is also highly problematic because it doesn't have a fair use policy.  For example, if you buy a cd, move the songs to your Ipod, and a few years later sell the cd at a yard sale, you can be fined tens of thousands of dollars for having the songs still on your Ipod.  In fact, if you even move your songs from a cd to an Ipod you can be fined under this new law.  In the US case, the definition of what is a work is highly problematic and needs to be refined.

One person has been particularly active in Canada in refuting parts of bill C-61.  He is not opposed to copyright protection; he just opposes the legislation proposed which is unnecessarily draconian and fundamentally flawed.  Michael Geist is a professor of political science at the University of Ottawa and he founded the group Fair Copyright for Canada (http://www.faircopyrightforcanada.ca/).  There has to be a way to protect copyrights without harming legitimate users.

Gshlecc wrote:oh boo-hoo, i wont be able to STEAL music any more, boo-hoo


grow up and pay for things like an adult. if you steal music, and that's what music piracy is, then you reap what you sow.

What if you're not an adult?


In any case I feel that siezing all the computers is an overly aggressive tactic. Why should I, for example, have to lose my computer privelages because my sister is downloading MP3's illegally? What if I had no knowledge of the fact?

Seems like an incredibly fallacious form of punishment.