digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Congressman wants ISPs to be Copyright Police

torrentfreak.com — With warrentless wiretapping sweeping the US, a leading congressman is proposing similar measures for the Internet. This isn ’t an attempt at ‘fighting terror’ but instead a new measure to reduce so-called ‘piracy’ by making the ISPs the police force.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • hardcorerikki, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29This guy better shut up and check his kid's computer, he surely has a few gigs of warez and music himself.
    If this is passed, whatever money he was given, he'd end up restituting it to the copyright thughs
  • MavRevMatt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+28If this passes, everyone should just torrent more, and overload the ISP's copyright staff, their servers, and resources. Then they'd have an "Oh *****" kinda moment.
    • ConceptJunkie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18I believe the phrase "unfunded mandate" comes to mind. Our Congresswhores think all we have to do, and all we would want to do, is sit around and do paperwork for the government all day. Here's an idea, Congressman. Do YOUR job for a change.
    • oneoverzero, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12I agree.

      Does anybody really think that the internet would be nearly as popular if there weren't that shady side to it?

      Even my father, who knows nothing about bittorrenting, P2P, or piracy, has told me that one of the reasons that the internet is so appealing to him is that it has a raw, dangerous side to it. I'd imagine this is the same for others; if they were to (effectively) get rid of that, the ISPs would lose a lot of money, and regret their decision to do this immensely.
      • diggduggjoe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I agree that turning the Internet into a form of cable television would destroy its value. Heck, every website is copyrighted, so how do they expect monitor everything. Monitoring requires records, too. They would have to ban encryption, for everyone would go black on day one of this law.
    • grawity, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2/. effect?
    • lazyfisherman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Radio was raw and dangerous once... look how that turned out. The Internet is a different animal, though, and harder to control. There are legions of kids growing up never having to pay for music, tv shows or movies, never really experiencing censorship online, never being told what they can and can't research, learn about or see and they will not tolerate the Internet being turned into yet another useless TV channel. Surely, the ISPs know that the reason they are so popular and can offer expensive broadband services is, in part, because of the "raw, dangerous" stuff? Take away video sharing sites, Pr0n, music trading, torrents, P2P and what's left?? E-Commerce sites? Linux distros? Email and a bunch of text files?
      I suspect a lot people would quickly downgrade their services to some basic DSL package for email, light web-surfing if they could only access a sterile, sanitized Internet. There's no reason to pay $50-100 / month for that.
  • madh4tter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+43But what ever happened to the land of the free? :-(
    • IADTatami, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17It's been slowly dying ever since people were put in direct competition with corporations for the ear of their representatives.
    • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2I agree that our freedom's are deteriorating. But why do you feel that you are free to take someone's IP and infringe their copyright?
      • IADTatami, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Sometimes a body of laws is more destructive than the crimes they are meant to combat.
      • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1I agree (I even dugg you up), but what is your suggestion? Should copyright owners be shafted? If not, who should police? how should it be policed? All I see in the complaints is "I want to steal, so I'm going to bash corporations to justify my copyright infringements [whine whine whine]."
        • Travelsonic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2""I want to steal, so I'm going to bash corporations to justify my copyright infringements "

          Well, which is it, steal, or infringe copyright?

          You can't do them both.



          ..or can you? *runs to invent* < / joke>
          • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Stealing isn't the name of a crime it's a word in the english language. I was using the dictionary.com definition: "to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right." If I said theft, you'd have a point, because theft is a crime and copyright infringement is not theft.
        • IADTatami, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7You won't like it: Focus on the bootleggers and those who sell unauthorized copies of protected work for monetary gain and leave the casual infringers alone. Music piracy seems to function like free advertisement, and while I feel true sympathy for the predicament of software developers, it seems that all their efforts to combat piracy do is alienate consumers and render the official product inferior to the pirated version of the same. It doesn't make much sense to me.
          • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I don't disagree with that, but in trying to get the big guns they're going to hurt the little guy the same way they are now
      • marx2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This has been an issue since (and probably before) the first video game ever had been pirated. So why suddenly all the requirement for such draconian measures?
        • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The reason is napster scared the ***** out of these companies. When p2p and similar networking tools became mainstream the large corporations got and and vindictive.
          Similarly, they never sued anyone over burning a CD until people started to distribute them.
    • lazyfisherman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6You need to have at least 10 million in the bank to be eligible to read the fine print
    • ghostlywind, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Lost in translation
    • Pake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3That died off long ago when people started looking for the letter D and letter R when voting.
  • ripstuntz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+35ripstuntz wants ISPs and Congressman to mind their own ***** business.
  • SilentJay74, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Howard L. Berman's KAZAA Library: Bert Bacharach sings his hits!
    Carpenters Weve only just begun
    Rocky Mountain High
    Mel Torme's greatest hits
    Sinatra and Garland!
    Girls Gone Wild: Huntington Beach
  • penguinsix, on 10/10/2007, -14/+8But, but, but--he's a Democrat! Shock and horror. A non-Republican that is evil. It must be Bush mind-control over Berman. Oh the humanity....
    • rspeed, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Your attempt at satire failed.
    • Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Hey Mr. "witty remark"

      Its not about democrat or republican, they're just two sides of the same coin. Its about our representatives, um..representing us, which is why they're called representatives. Otherwise they should just be called lobbitarians.
      • RuffRidr, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4It shouldn't be. But you know damned well if this was a Republican, it would be all over the headline, the description and every other comment in this story.
        • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It makes me sad that you're right. Republicans and Democrats have no real difference between them. It's all about who has the power
        • Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"It's all about who has the power"

          And we all know it ain't us.
    • Matjock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Belive me there are PLENTY of evil Democrats our there!!!
      • Pake, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2But only the Republicans will have their party mentioned in a Digg post.
  • ConceptJunkie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+33Perhaps our Congresswhores should focus on protecting this country, allowing it to enforce its laws and other parts of their actual jobs instead of being lapdogs for big media. Just a thought.
  • jason469, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19We no longer are free, we are all looked at as criminals or U.S. Citizens waiting to commit a crime. We no longer get the benefit of the doubt, they must keep you in check at all times.
    • fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Brings to mind the "tax" Microsoft pays Universal for every Zune, because the record companies assume that everyone pirates music.
      • longbow486, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i thought that all mobile media players that stored music had to pay that "tax"
  • Matthew720, on 10/10/2007, -0/+29Corporations have enough administrative powers as it is. Giving ISPs the power to regulate and censor the internet is akin to giving landline phone companies the power to decide who can call you and who can't and what words are prohibited and what words are allowed. This Congressman is an idiot.
    • toomuchpete, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9ISPs already have that power. This would give them the RESPONSIBILITY to do it. Huge difference.
    • grawity, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9(This comment was blocked by *insert your ISP name here* because its author said ungood things about censorship)
      • marx2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3On the bright side, a doubleration of chocolate next week. That is doubleplusgood. What a wonderful time to be alive!
  • franksands, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12I have a great sugestion: why don't you leave the ISP only to Provide Internet Services and leave the policing copyright to the Police? How about that?
    • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I agree ... but everyone on Digg bitches when the police try to police copyrights
  • alricsca, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15The term I like to use for democrats who serve the big media's interest over their constituents is Media Whores. After all, they are selling themselves for profit, most often illegally, to themselves or their fellow business pimp associates. People like this need to be damned from politics forever, whatever party they are in.
    • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3unfortunately, they sell themselves legally ... it should be illegal, but it's not
      • longbow486, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0either way it should NEVER happen
        they are there for us not BM
    • mwolfzorn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why single out Democrats? Whoring themselves out isn't a one sided issue. Actually I would say probably every major member in the House and Senate, both sides of the isle, whore themselves out quite regularly, be it in the bathroom or a fund raiser.
  • jus10y, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3*Filtered*
  • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Howard L. Berman is Democrat.
    • neodorian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3That's great. Now let's get rid of him.
    • Personatech, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Worse. He's a California Democrat. Absolutely useless with no grip on reality.
  • Matjock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9If our government continues our country will be a combination of George Orwell's "1984" and Nazi Germany in 20 years's time
    • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1you're an idiot ... their is no slippery slope between Nazi Germany and enforcing copyright laws. and allowing a third party to make sure that theft is not occurring is not like 1984. Try being a little less dramatic and a little more realistic and make an actual point.
      • marx2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Getting big government into micromanaging the lives of individuals (for corporations, by corporations) does get us closer to 1984. Having every entity and service keeping a watchful eye on us in the name of IP laws, terrorism, child porn, what have you, and reporting it to the government does get us closer to 1984. Having such harsh punishment/fines inflicted on the middle class individual so that the upper class and collective corporations can benefit should be a crime in and of itself.
      • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0I disagree. The proposition made by the Senator isn't a micromanagement, it's a security guard. Do you feel violated by the camera's and security guards at best buy? because that's what they are trying to do.
        The lawsuits by the RIAA have been for exorbitant amounts of money, but they haven't been successful and they haven't collected and that is a different issue than this anyhow.
  • dsmx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Why is that so many idiots get into positions of power?
    • marx2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I now turn your attention to the idiots voting them into power. A federation of idiots, by idiots, for idiots.
  • davidjunit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8QUICK! Make it a law for employers to be required to check their employees' iPods for pirated music!
    • grawity, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Will this apply to Zunes?
      • Pilot85, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not if microsoft pays a fee.
        • lacronicus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1hey, theyve got the money. I'd take that over me having to pay.
  • jawbreaker4fs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Relakks FTW
  • Hermmunster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15This congressman doesn't seem to understand the idea of privacy. He'd have someone watching everything we did in our homes if he could. This is like saying that the property owner from whom you rent has the right to be inside your home to monitor to ensure that you are not committing crimes.

    Get this through your ***** HEADS, your computer is an EXTENSION OF YOUR HOMES. You allow them to monitor you and you are doing the same thing as allowing someone to monitor the activities in your home. This is not a highway where you are driving your car. Even so, we have police that do that and those police have very strict rules to follow on what they can and can't do.

    This is clearly a subversion of the rules behind the laws that we have put in place to curtail the inappropriate behavior of the police authorities. Only with civilian agencies monitoring the population without constant checks on their own behavior we'll have the worst degrading of our privacy we've ever seen in the history of the world.

    Get it straight. Your computer is an extension of your home. You would no more allow a civilian organization enter your home than you would allow the police. This is the very reason you should not be buying Vista. It is a clear violation of your privacy rights.

    This congressman should be voted out of office. Make your family and everyone else aware that your computer is an extension of your home. If they want to keep this guy in office they are responsible for the degradation of the rights of every citizen even that of their children, grandchildren and generations to come.
    • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You misunderstand the law in your third paragraph. If a law passes allowing or insisting that a private entity do something that would violate the 4th amendment if it were done by the police, then that law is unconstitutional.
      The counter argument is that although a computer is an extension of your home, the traffic coming in and leaving your computer is not. Just as the police have broader rights to search a vehicle the police have a broader right to search the information which comes in and out of your computer.
      • hexydes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Then just like a police, they should be required to obtain a warrant for every single person that they wish to accuse of obtaining copyrighted works.
        • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0That is not how it works in vehicle searches. When someone is pulled over (regardless of the reason), a cop can pull a person out of a car, search any unlocked areas of the car and pat down the driver and the passengers without a warrant or reasonable suspicion without violating the constitution. The Supreme Court has read the word "unreasonable" in an interesting wat.
          • Travelsonic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2A car is not a computer
          • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1and by the same respect a computer is not a home ... read the whole conversation rather than just jumping in. "you're like a child, who wanders in ..."

    • lazyfisherman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Would you let a cop hang out in your living room for a few days just to, you know, see if you're doing anything illegal, taking drugs, bringing home a little too much cash and not reporting it to the taxman etc.? No, you wouldn't. So why would it be ok to give the government the ability to do this with your Internet connection?

      Somebody make Hermmunster a congressman, he gets it
      • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0@lazyfisherman: That's a self-serving and unfair analogy. They don't want to put software on your computer, which would be the equivalent of standing in your living room. They want to monitor the traffic coming in and out of your computer. This is much more akin to a traffic cop, a sobriety checkpoint or a weigh station.
      • marx2k, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The police may not be allowed to sit in your home while you smoke or grow pot. However, if you send pot through the mail via USPS, FedEx, UPS, it is legal for the government or the company you use to check the package.

        If you are doing illegal things over your own lan, it would be dubious if the government did anything to you, legally.
        But the packets of information you send through the internet are not limited to your home and your local lan. Once it is outside of your home, it is not longer under certain privacy laws. Your ISP is not your friend or confidante. Just like when you go to the library to check out the book, 'the feds' can go see what it is you checked out and ensure that you never even know that it happened (them checking you out)
  • RealHyperX, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12Damn Democrats! What the *****! They are ***** everything up!
    • marx2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You think there's a huge difference between democrats and republicans? Get past the blame game and take your mind out of the two party system.
    • lacronicus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1you think the republicans wouldn't do this if they had the chance? its nto a matter of democrat or republican, its a problem of leet and noob. the parties dont get the internet, niether of them.
  • grawity, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Encryption.
  • lordmetroid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5There is already a society of snitching established where common people enforce each other. This is just one more step deeper into fascism for you.
  • aadnk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I see the Internet as a catalyst, a force that initiates a paragdime shift in information flow, just like during the arise of the printing press and the introduction of libraries, which de-monopolize the receiver and the sender (the latter especially with the Internet), shifting the power of control and decision from corporate, government and institutionalized (the church) bodies of their time - all seeking to censor the public opinion to their own interest - to the individual itself. Due to these revolutions, the men in power, intending to at least retain SOME their previous control and censorship over the populace, responded by establishing concepts such as copyright and patents, getting away with it, admittingly in a quite brilliant way, by arguing that it were for the benefit of the consumer and the creator, fully knowing that that's not the case (unlike the politicians, which this article clearly shows). Today is no different.

    But the Internet is more than a efficient distribution system. It, more than anything before it, empowers INDIVIDUALS across the globe to express themselves freely with their OWN options and discoveries, privately and anonymously if they so desire, and participate in this emergent, self-organizing social environment/accepting atmosphere ensuring a free flow of information - potentially the sum of human knowledge - to the benefit of understanding, development and true democrazy.

    The very idea of trading away this achievement, just for the interest of a small subset of parasitic distributors engaging in crumbling monopolizes, is preposterous and insulting. Let them fall. The privacy of a nations citizens, the fundamental rights of civil liberty (Rick Falkvinge: "the postal secret, whistleblower protection, freedom of the press, and the very right to an identity"), is far, FAR more important.
    • IADTatami, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The cost of reproduction for these items abruptly hit $0.00 during the 90s. This punched an enormous hole in the business structure, and the god damned idiots are trying to plug it up with our freedom. It's sick. A better nation wouldn't stand for it any more than it would the official use of torture.
    • marx2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The problem is that the internet backbone is not comprised of 'the people', but rather of private corporations who have absolutely no problem watching private individuals for the benefit of the private corporations and if money/force is involved, the government.
  • ronaldinho, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I have to say, at first I do feel that making ISPs being another form of police can really crack down on downloading (most would be intimidated because of their lack of CPU knowledge), but would that actually benefit the ISPs in the long run? If I'm an ISP, there is no way I'm cracking down on people downloading, since that IS one of the main reasons people use the internet. In fact, I wouldn't give a ***** what they are doing as long as I'm getting my money
    • webRat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Fairly certain you'd give a ***** as soon as you heard that someone is serving out child porn in your ip space. It's a fine line and I expect ISPs to figure out where they stand.
      • ferrofluid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How does civil copyright infringement compare to child porn ????
        maybe in the minds of MAF54 and the other paedophile politicians and the lobby group bought and TLA blackmailed ones, but not for 99.99% of the internet users.
    • DontGiveADamn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Your are absolutely correct. As soon as my ISP turns me in I will cancel my account. When I pay them I expect them to be working for me, not the software police.
  • in2deep, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Is this even right to do?
  • SyberMile, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2how far do they think they can push us before we have a civil war? we have went to war over dumber things. I guess what I'm saying is i know they don't want all the geeks to unplug and show them who the real power in this country is.
    • marx2k, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The problem is that most people don't actually care, and the subset of geeks that this does effect either have no organizing power or also don't care because they don't feel that it would effect them in any way. Example: RIAA/MPAA suing people. Are you donating anything to the individuals' defense? Didn't think so? Is anyone? Didn't think so.
      • SyberMile, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1we shouldn't be mad at RIAA/MPAA we should be mad at are selves for letting this happen this is the USA and the people make the USA what it is. it is are fault that big biz has this much power in OUR country. i guess when we have no rights and only people with ALOT of money control everything then we will have perfect 20/20 back-vision. every revolution had a group of people that started it and finished it (blacks, jews, ETC...) this may be the geeks turn to show that this is a digital age and it can not be controlled...
      • ferrofluid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dont you just love the **AA interns and their so holier than tho attitude and language.
        MAF54 would be so proud.
    • cliffski, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1you want a civil war so you can keep downloading Hollywood ,movies for free? seriously, get some ***** perspective. wars are fought over life and death issues, and fundamnetal freedoms, not getting warez.
      dork.
  • Qtip42, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Old people shouldn't be allowed to be involved in anything dealing with the internet. They're too out of touch.

    This old fart is probably getting cash from lobbyists.... ***** him.
    • neuropsychguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Old age has nothing to do with being out of touch with technology. Being out of touch happens when you don't even try to learn about new things. Have a little respect for older people. If we take old people out of internet policies let's take young people out of Social Security policies. Let's take young people out of alcohol and drug legislation because they are more likely to be using the substances.

      *No, I'm not old unless 27 counts as old.
    • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't know how old you are but to make blanket statements like"old people just don't get "x" is a foolish statement. Technological advances throughout the last 100 years has accelerated beyond the scope of many people to catch up. My great-grandparents were probably mystified by electricity in the home and airplanes. My grandparents were amazed by radio, My parents were astonished by television. If I didn't have such an interest in it, I might be befuddled by computers (I'm 47). I hate to use the hackneyed phrase of "when you're older, you'll understand", but when it comes to technology it's usually true.

      Chances are when you're older, there will be some amazing new stuff happening that no one expected and the young people of that age will look at you and say, "Don't fret it gramps, you're too old to understand."
  • cloudyprison, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Alright, hit the fec.gov site and check out his contributors. Sony, Adobe Inc, EMI, AOL, Amazon, HP, Intel, Microsoft, XM, and Time Warner Music.
    I can't seem to locate the actual congressman, can every corporation please turn out their pockets?
  • cloudyprison, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Alright, hit the fec.gov site and check out his contributors. Sony, Adobe Inc, EMI, AOL, Amazon, HP, Intel, Microsoft, XM, and Time Warner Music.
    I can't seem to locate the actual congressman, can every corporation please turn out their pockets?
  • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ah Jeez, now we gotta go adapt all the P2P stuff to get around this knothead?
  • howyoudoin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1at this moment in time all his family members are saying "oh *****" and deleting their download folders. "grandpa has gone and done it now"

    this would be the end of the internet
    • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I hardly believe it would be the end of the internet or even illegal downloads. It would make it a bit harder to do, but consider this...when Napster and others of the same were taken down, what happened? Other solutions rose up and made it even easier.
  • ronjohn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1QUICK everyone start using TOR google it it works trust me you'll like it!! They can't catch what they don't see!!!!
  • bradbaxter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The biggest problem here, as far as I'm concerned, is the notion that the government can FORCE a private company to do police work.
  • jigglebilly, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1just goes to show you that our government is more worried about making money and protecting big business than solving the real problems in the world

    keep up the good work congress, dumb asses
  • shauncorleone, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I'm so sick of people putting "so-called" in front of the word "piracy". It's still pirating, no matter how you attempt to justify it. You can put a cape and a bonnet on an elephant, but it's still a ***** elephant.
    On focus: I seriously doubt legislation will pass and be upheld that will hold the ISPs criminally responsible for the actions of their subscribers in the event that they don't monitor all their traffic. Then again, I would have doubted CBS could be held liable for a defamation of character suit by a women's basketball player, so what do I know.
  • zyko, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1This would only serve major corporations, specifically MPAA and RIAA. Individuals, artists, independent musicians and small businesses would be left to fend for themselves when their IP is used without permission (often by bigger companies). It would be no different if city police guarded the mansions and entrance gates of rich people.
  • outlaw686, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1By Mail
    Washington Office*

    Congressman Howard L. Berman
    2221 Rayburn House Office Building
    Washington, D.C. 20515
    Phone: (202) 225-4695
    Fax: (202) 225-3196

    *Due to prior anthrax contamination, safety procedures require all mail sent to my Washington Office to be irradiated. This procedure delays the delivery of mail by approximately two weeks. If you need an immediate response, please contact my District Office.
    District Office

    Congressman Howard L. Berman
    14546 Hamlin Street, Suite 202
    Van Nuys, CA 91411
    Phone: (818) 994-7200
    Fax: (818) 994-1050
    • ferrofluid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Another failure of the Bush regime, they couldnt be bothered to catch the domestic terrorists that committed the 2001 Anthrax attacks....
      10,000s of FBI employees, multi billion dollar budgets and they didnt catch anybody.
      And before you say anything the envelopes were posted after 911.
  • thespudmall, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Okey....where is the protest website?
  • outlaw686, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1still trying to find a valid zip code to use http://www.house.gov/berman/contact/
  • DesignerScott, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I have an idea, why don't we all (and I mean everyone) file a claim in court that we have highly technical, albeit slightly circumstantial evidence that the RIAA has infringed on one of our own copyrights, and insist on taking all of their computers for further analysis, and claim that you were going to sell that copyrighted piece for $5million?
    • ferrofluid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Getting Foleys PCs out of the strange protection of Congress, and into the hands of the Florida police would be a good start.
  • outlaw686, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0c
  • ChooseReality, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I'm sick of the new fascist US.
    • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Interesting phrase. Do you honestly believe that this has happened because of the politics of one party? For all that everyone screams about Bush, the Democrats haven't exactly shown their best face in these issues either. Still waiting for someone to explain the difference between democrats and republicans. In policy issues, I see very little difference.
  • yelow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think this will really put the whole net neutrality issue either in the front lines, or freaking done with.

    -Tim
  • Sidzilla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Maybe it's not such a bad idea. The CIA has learned that Al Quaeda is downloading Britney Spears albums with impunity! We have to stop that to preserve our freedom! Now, where was that sarcasm switch... I had it here a minute ago.
  • noctu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3its time to make a fast wireless dark-net.
  • verstohlen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0"warrentless" heh heh heh. Good thing ISPs don't have to be the spelling police.
  • Panda200x, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3The pirate bay don't do isp's, but if they did, they'd probably be the best isp in the world.
    Fact.
  • Panda200x, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The pirate bay don't do isp's, but if they did, they'd probably be the best isp in the world.
    Fact.
  • Panda200x, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3The pirate bay don't do isp's, but if they did, they'd probably be the best isp in the world.
    Fact.
  • kahrytan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What else do you expect from a democrat? They have never been for net neutrality. It's a republican thing.
  • bshock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If this congressman wants ISP to be copyright police, I want the real police to investigate this congressman. No doubt we'd find him 69ing Disney executives in public places.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.