Slashdot Mirror
MPAA, Microsoft Testify Piracy Funds Terrorism
GuyMannDude writes "[Yesterday's] Oversight Hearing on "International Copyright Piracy: Links to Organized Crime and Terrorism" featured the MPAA and Microsoft testifying that software and movie DVD counterfeiting is an acute problem, with criminal gangs operating factories in Russia, Malaysia and other countries that have weak copyright laws. They further claim that intellectual property piracy is a vehicle for financing or supporting acts of terror." There's another article about the hearing at Infoworld.
I mean, sure, I can buy drugs, or pirate music/movies/games. But, I can also drive an SUV, or use oil in other ways. I can also support terror by being critical of the government, or being supportive of the use of encryption and privacy. I mean, so many options, so much terror. Where does one start?
"Terrorism" is just the keyword of the past 18 months or so. Everything you hate gets labelled as promoting terrorism and everything you like is an anti-terrorist measure.
If it works for little Bush, why not for little Bill?
There's really nothing unusual going on there. Just the usual stupidity and simple-mindedness.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Oooookkkkkeeeey... So I'm supposed to believe that religous extremists, in thier war against the West and the Western culture, are financing operations by pirating and spreading the very thing that they are against.
It's kind of like hardcore Vegans raising money for a campaign by holding a sausage sizzle.
Complete bullshit.
--
Simon
Want to demonize something but have now real information to back it up? Just say it fund terrorism, works every time!
Nan
God is real unless declared integer.
How about we get rid of religion?
Sounds like a plan to me.
...everyone uses terrorism to push their agenda. I'm so sick of that phrase. Don't like something that people are doing? Tell them that it funds terrorists, and they'll stop. I suppose it works -- the average person probably believes this crap.
I was so pissed the first time I saw the commercial with the teenagers saying "I helped terrorists because I bought a dime bag" (or whatever). 9/11 was a *terrible* event, yes, but to try to make people think they're partly responsible because they commit some petty crime? Total BS.
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
but undemocratic countries around the world are using exactly the same trick to get rid of everybody who talks about free elections too loudly. Let's shoot the suckers, we're fighting terrorism! It has been 1 1/2 year since 9/11 and the Bush administration still has no exact definition of the word "terrorist". That is good for US foreign policy, but non-US citizens pay for this with their lives.
How stock fraud doesn't fund terrorism? Funny how that works...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Burning a mix CD of Moog Cookbook supports terrorism, but a "Christian" country unilaterally declaring war on a Muslim nation doesn't?
The requested URL
If the current big evil was pollution, I'm sure they'd be coming up with some way to say that piracy was causing pollution... surely all those poorly run pirate factories are big polluters, right?
I would guess that a lot of the anti-civil-liberties laws that got shoved through recently were not created recently. I bet they were just waiting around for a good enough excuse that the public would accept it.
I hope you're not pretending to be evil while secretly being good. That would be dishonest.
It may seem strange, but some countries have suffered terrorism long before 9/11. And yeah, it would have been funded by drugs, protection rackets and maybe even piracy. This article really is nothing new, as stuff like this has been going on for decades, bombs and guns dont come cheap.
It's not so much funding terrorism, but increasing local gang violence. People DO get shot/robbed over drugs, incl grass.
They are whatever they decide will make them money today.
NEWS FLASH!
All black market activities fund terrorism in one way or another. That is how the black market works. Alcohol sales funded terrorism in the US during prohibition. Cocaine, stolen art, fake Levi jeans, ivory, all contribute to terrorism.
If we had a black market in Barbie dolls the money would be used to fund terrorism.
x "is used to fund terrorism" isn't really an effective argument for more controls over x. It is a better argument for making x freely available so that there will be no black market for it.
Obviously the MPAA and MS wouldn't go for the idea but they are the ones creating the black market with their licensing requirements. If they really cared about avoiding the funding of terrorism they would let whoever wanted to copy their stuff copy it freely.
Anyhow, why are they spending their energy harassing p2p users when they have the real hardcore criminal gangs to go after? Could it be because the average p2p user don't have bombs?
Coding Blog
At the same time, don't trivialize a claim. For example, the recent convictions on cigerette smuggling used to fund terrorism. The smuggling was done right here in the old U.S. of A. So it is plausible that other avenues of crime are being used, including sales of drugs.
What I am trying to say is be skeptical, but don't dismiss outright.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
"It's more dangerous than we thought"... What a bunch a shit...
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Exactly. Marijuana is the reason the girl's parents didn't give her condoms, get her birth control, teach her about sex in the first fucking place?
If these commercials were to show the truth, they would show a car full of stoners laughing as they wallk out of Krispy Kreme with 10 boxes of donuts... Harmless? =D
If more talk like this get's to the people in congress and the government, this could soon encompass the 'you're either with us, or against us' attitude the infects the current administration.
Why is this not good?. For quite a few reasons. Many in the free software and open source community face various uphill battles when trying to use or get others to use non-commercial, specifically, non-m$ products. Linking piracy of IP to terrorism starts sending the message that anyone interested in not buying software could be deemed a non-patriotic (think France and the Florida Freedom Fries and Liberty dressing if you don't follow me) and someone helping anyone that doesn't necessairly fall in line with the accepted point of view of what's legal and what isn't, is gonna soon be in trouble.
I'm all for supporting the software industry and making money selling software. However, the price barrier for purchasing software in other countries is sometimes so high, that the only alternative is to get a pirated copy. This monolithic view of buy our software at the price we set, period!, can only play well in economies that can support the cost. If m$ would instead take this as maybe their customers outside of wealthy countries cannot afford $199 for a version of XP and we will then adjust accordingly and fairly, then I think there would actually be less piracy. However, Bill did not become the worlds richest man being fair.
That said, when a proven monopoly, who got off scott free, links these circumstances to terrorism, it basically opens the door for the U.S. govt to now start not only being the morality police of the world, but the information police. This is not far fetched. When a company pushes the way m$ has for Palladium, Digital Restrication Management, and product activation, closed 'standards', they basically start controlling how you can and cannot access information. As time rolls on this will become more and more critical as more and more of the world hits the net and connects with other. This is textbook civics/government high school class stuff.
These issues are well documented through many writers on many sites. The connection of information, freedom to own what you buy (not a license to use it), intellectual property, and the linking of piracy to terrorism makes for a dim future for everyone who does not want to, cannot follow along (land of the free?) or cannot afford ot license every idea and process under the sun. The America for the individual will be fine as long as you play within the boundries set by the few like Valenti, Gates, Ashcroft (remember how he said the latest m$ court 'ruling' was a victory for the consumer??) - their vision of morality and what constitutes fairness.
Frankly, this persuades me more and more to let friends and family know that their use of products that these companies crank out, will restrict their freedom more and more as time rolls on. As technologies like Palladium and DRM mature and are used more widely throughout the world, these issues will be harder, if not impossible to dodge and the way the net and our machines work now, will not exist. It is up to everyone who sees this to do their part, however small. Support the FSF, Non-M$ anything, your local/fav Linux distro, contribute some code or time to a os/gpl/free project, or purchase hardware from alternate non-M$ only hardware manufacturer (are there any?). Along with our voices, our dollars will be the most significant in making sure that we will have a choice in the future.
You know, that Jack Valenti.
"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
"What is fair use? Fair use is not a law. There's nothing in law."
And my fave,
"I sleep each night a little better, a little more confidently, because Lyndon Johnson is my president. "
That's an old one, but sort of illustrates the point. Jack Valenti is a ridiculous dinosaur from the Johnson administration, and he still thinks like a military guy from that era. He's not an idiot, but he is massively self-deluding, and you can count on him to not concede anything he doesn't absolutely have to. Like many old-school execs, Valenti will never totally grasp the fact that scarcity of media is history. He'd rather fight than adapt. Which is a shame - as these types of organizations (MPAA studios, etc.) essentially have a first-shot opportunity when situations like P2P arise, through startup capital and established contracts.
It's rhetoric. He does it to get a rise out of people. It's the Bigger Hammer approach. You can try and yell louder, or you can ignore him.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
That's because they are legal. Prohibition is what creates gang warfare.
Remember, the most powerful gang warfare we ever had was during alcohol prohibition. Because more people drink alcohol than smoke marijuana, it created a lot more funding for Al Capone and his insidious cronies.
As long as things people want to do are illegal but still have high demand, they will fund the black market.
Legalize it.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Unless you're actually a member of a terrorist organization using piracy to directly fund your group, NO professional pirates would give their funds away to terrorists, for one simple reason: profit.
Professional pirates are businessmen. (Also see: professional drug dealers). If they invest money in anything, they want to see some sort of return on it - giving the money to terrorist groups is about as financially effective as setting it in a pile and lighting it on fire. Why would anyone trying to maximise their profits give their money to people who can't make it into more money, when sound investment opportunities are right there for the taking?
Having terrorists blow things up and wreck the economy is also not exactly something that someone who wants to make good investments would probably be very interested in. So, now you have two great reasons not to give your money to these people. So, seriously, NO ONE is doing this, and the entire concept is bullshit.
We shouldn't dismiss outright, but assertions require proof, and extraordinary assertions require extraordinary proof. Without proof a claim must be considered mere speculation.
/. whenever a story about the DMCA or Microsoft is posted? Such arguments are no more valid when they are presented by a corporation to a Congressional committee than they are when presented by one of us in this forum. They just have a larger and more influential audience.
Minds certainly should remain open, but if the claimant provides no facts to support the claim and instead depends on an appeal to a pre-existing emotion for validation (in this case justified outrage over the results of terrorism) then the claim trivializes itself.
Don't we see similar "appeals to outrage" here on
Do you?
Hlack market economies create violence. All of them. They have no real choice. The reason is simple: no recourse to the law.
What do you do if you buy a bottle rum at a liqour store and find out it's nothing but water? You call the police and have that jackass arrested for selling bogus merchandice.
What do you do if you buy some weed from a dealer and it turns out to be catnip and oregano? Call the cops? Last person I heard about that did that was arrested. No. You either live with the fact that you got ripped off or you shoot the sonofabitch.
Because the sale, puirchase and distribution of pot, or any other illegal drug, requires that the manufacturers/growers, distributors, sellers and end consumers all operate outside the law. This leaves them only one recourse when things go bad. This also leaves them no choice in how to deal with conflicts of any kind.
If legalized and sold through normal sales channels, drugstores (hey, that's a catchy name) drug-related violence will drop like a stone. If you can call the cops because that jackass at the corner pharmacy cuts his stock of Vantage Ultra Gold Columbian with catnip then you don't have to shoot him for it. If he knows that he can call the coips because you passed a bad check he knows he dowsn't have to shoot you for trying not to pay.
It's like the liqour business durring prohibition, or the porn industry when it was illegal to make blue movies, or like prostitution is right now. When you make something that people want illegal, you create a lawless subculture that is infested with violence.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
One of the big successes of the anti-drug propaganda war is what you have pointed out, the way the authorities have been able to blame the problems of prohibition on the drug itself.
Now, just because prohibition causes problems is not necessarily an argument against prohibition; it is simply part of the cost-benefit analysis. Alcohol prohibition worked to some extent, it cut alcohol consumption in half. However, the general public decided that the costs of prohibition outweighed the benefits of reducing alcohol use.
When it comes to pot, all the scientific evidence shows that it is less harmful than alcohol; it isn't possible to overdose (unlike alcohol "poisoning"), there are no serious diseases proven to be caused by it (unlike cirrhosis of the liver), and it is not nearly as addictive (read up on delirium tremens, then find any description of pot addiction). Since pot is even less harmful than alcohol, there is even less reason to accept the cost of prohibiting it, as compared to alcohol.
Now with other drugs, like heroin, the benefits of reducing consumption may outweigh the costs of enforcement. Unfortunately, governments rarely bother to even admit the costs of prohibition, preferring to blame everything on the drug. The result is that people are forced to choose the more dangerous mind-altering substance, Alcohol. They must risk arrest in order to make the more responsible and intelligent choice of using pot, the least harmful mind-altering drug.
-- Pot is safer than Beer