Slashdot Mirror
Ukraine Tries to Avoid U.S. Trade Restrictions
GMFTatsujin writes: "In response to the threat of US trade sanctions, the Ukraine parliament hastily passed an anti-piracy bill aimed at reducing the bootlegged CD problem. I especially liked this quote from this Wired article: '"We are deeply disappointed that Ukraine has not passed an effective law and instead is rushing through an ineffective law," said Eric Schwartz, vice president and special counsel of the International Intellectual Property Alliance." This is a follow-up to our story of two weeks ago about Ukraine not complying with U.S. demands for 'an optical media licensing regime.'
This law, or any law the Ukraine makes on CD piracy, is a law on paper only. The gov't is more concerned with supplying food and utilities to their people than whether the RIAA is going to receive their profits. To place trade sanctions on a country because they're harboring terrorists or committing genocide is one thing, to deny a country supplies because they might sell the CD's they burn is absurd.
So does the US impose sanctions on every nation that refuses to dance to the RIAA/MPAA's tune? At what point does this become counter-productive for a country that's also currently trying to keep an anti-terror coalition together?
the US gov't isn't the backbone of this whole manipulation, it's the RIAA (and the international IP association). the US gov't is just doing it's usual job by taking lots of money from the lobby. someone's gotta snag those mo-fo's into some quake action and show 'um what fraggin is all about.
Apparently Western corporate profits really are more important than 3rd world lives to those who are currently in power.
This is exactly the ethos our government has been subscribing to, openly since the Reagan era of the 1980's and perhaps much longer than that.
It isn't just "third world" lives, either. American profits are deemed much more important than American lives (e.g. Mansanto deliberately polluting an American town's groundwater as recently as a few short years ago, killing many people, maiming many more, and not a single board member, employee, or shareholder will ever see the inside of a jail cell).
We made a conscious choice as a society to subscribe to a system which values wealth above everything else, and rewards greed above every other character trait. Worse, we've decided corporations are to be treated as people, with all of their rights and none of their responsibilities, exacerbating an already poor cultural choice.
Is it really any surprise at all that the natural consiquence of such a system, based upon such a skewed ethical premise, is that Corporate Profits are considered to be vastly more important the human lives?
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Not only that, but then when we tell them, they'll point at some other country we hate and tell us that it's okay because they are doing it too.
A:"Why do you hate us so much?"
SJ:"your country routinely disregards human life in favour of petty economic interests, and tends to disregard laws, both it's own, and international laws as well."
A:"So does China and Iraq!"
Seriously, read just about any "Here is why we hate America" chat, and this will happen. It's happened on slashdot quite a few times in recent memory.
It's been a long time.
"Forced" is a bit of a strong word for that. Force implies Microsoft has got troops at computer assemblers pointing guns at people. Microsoft simply made it a condition for trade. If you want to distribute Windows on systems, you must put Windows on every box, and and you can't dual-boot with another operating system. And you must put Microsoft icons over other competitors on the desktop of users. And so on. If you want to trade with Microsoft, then you have to adapat to these rules. Don't want those agreements? Fine, be independent, and have no right to distribute Windows. If you come back begging to Microsft a year from now, they might let you back in (at double the licensing fees).
In 1775 another country was trying to impose its laws in the interest of an oligarchy of corporations monopolizing luxury items.
> The 9/11 bombers hated us for reasons that we have no way of alterring... unless one considers it acceptable for us to give up our equal treatment of women, our freedom to NOT be religious, and yes, even our indulgences in Hollywood entertainment and other things that affluence brings.
You've either spent too much time listening to recent rhetoric, or not enough time boning up on history. The U.S. being rich or not being a Muslim nation has very little to do with what happened on September 11th. For the most part, Osama bin Laden hates the U.S. for three reasons, in no particular order:
1.) We're closely allied with Israel.
2.) We've had a military presence in Saudi Arabia (his homeland and what he considers Muslim holy land) for decades.
3.) After training and equipping him and his assistants in 1980-1983 so they could fend off the Russian invasion, we pulled out of Afghanistan, leaving the Muhajadin (sp?) (which became the Taliban) poorly equipped to fight a civil war with the other Afghan factions that lasted to the present day (they were still fighting the Northern Alliance when the attacks occurred).
If you think that our affluence and our non-Muslimism is such a factor, you're not paying attention. It's easy to say that they hate us because they're jealous or because they're simply religious zealots, but it's wrong, and such myopia only serves to prevent us from considering how we can really change things in the world.
Virg
Microsoft doesn't have to use guns (if it were legal and they could spin the PR, I think they might...) to ruin someone's business all they have to do is threaten to do so.