Slashdot Mirror
Hilary Rosen from RIAA will write Iraq's Copyrights?
sould writes "The Register is reporting that Hilary Rosen is to assist in writing Iraq's Intellectual Property laws. Can't have those Iraqi's pirating Eminem now can we?"
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Did you know that there is a 2% surcharge on all CD recorders sold that goes directly to the RIAA, and a 2% hidden tax associated with the AHRA that is collected by the RIAA to give to artists, yet only roughly 36% of that 2% goes to the artist. www.boycott-riaa.com
I don't know -- reading the article didn't fill me with lots of confidence in the accuracy of this story. The whole tone seemed awfully biased to be a 'reputable' source. Can anyone else confirm this information from an alternate news source?
GMD
watch this
While the quote is both a funny and insightful comment, it is truely a sad situation that we live in a world where this could happen under any circumstances.
That said, with the freedoms we have we choose to go for a clearly biased party to create other countries laws.
This is world is crazy.
__
cheap web site hosting and reseller packages
That's a large part of the point for the RIAA. While Iraq is busy rebuilding it's infrastructure they can effectively impose their brand of IP law on these people with very little in the way of actual resistance.
To your average Iraqi, who CARES if they have no concept of fair use.. after all they have no running water, much less a CD burner.
This is not without precedent. In the wake of WWII our media conglomerates also imposed similiar types of oppressive IP law in France and West Germany which basically shut down their film makers..
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
I used to have the unfettered loathing for Rosen that most Slashdotters have. However, that changed after I read the Wired article that was profiling her.
It was very interesting to see that she did have some disagreements with the methods that the RIAA members wanted to use, but that she did her job by pushing for what the people the RIAA represented wanted, instead of what she personally wanted. (She was in favor of online music distribution and other details, if I remember correctly)
I do think that copyright law has gone way overboard - but that is still a minority view. I think many people, even those involved in enforcing it, haven't given proper thought to what it's all about, what it affects, and what it should be - either they just accept it as it is, or they're corporate folks who are looking at profit and being capitalists - doing whatever they can to make more money.
If Iraq ends up with a government that is trying to catch up to the international community, then what should we expect other than copyright laws that fit the rest of that community. And if they end up with a different gov't, perhaps an Islamic fundamentalist one, copyright law is not going to be high up on the agenda of things to worry about.
Work to get copyright law changed in those countries that are leading the charge to extend copyright periods, and smaller countries will follow their lead.
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
Bush lauded the work being done to restore basic services and order in Iraq after Saddam's ouster, but warned "the building of a new Iraq will take time." He said the United States will help Iraqis create a democratic society.
"America has no intention of imposing our form of government or our culture," he said. "Yet we will ensure that all Iraqis have a voice in the new government and all citizens have their rights protected."
My emphasis added. That's what Bush said in a speech in Michigan on Monday to Iraqi-Americans. Guess we're tossing that one out the window...
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
This news proves, in a weird way, that the recent war was about imposing "our" will (the will of a few well-connected insiders, actually) on Iraq, not on bringing it democracy.
I'm reminded of the lyrics of on old Phil Ochs tune (and may the ghost of Phil forgive me if my quoting violates any of his rights):
----------
Manifesto for the Peoples of the Third Millennium
...the source of the story: Democracy Now radio. It's a show at Pacifica.org, probably the most left-wing radio you can think of. While Democracy Now is still pretty decent by the radio's standards (for example, when a caller said that he wished more people died in the 9/11 attacks, the talk host didn't expressly agree with him as it happened on other shows of that radio), they are still highly unreliable. I don't trust some of the right-wing media, such as FOX News, but I trust even less what is being said on Democracy Now. Move on; there's nothing to see; the whole thing is most likely a hoax.
Should'nt laws be made by legislators, and in the Iraq's case a constitutional assembly?
Funny how US won't impose the form of Iraq's new regim, but already said no to ismalic constitution and now is writing their laws alone and already... very weird thing...
Can you please site, in the UN Charter of Rights and Freedoms where it says that? Can you further site, which UN Resolution equates "returning Iraq to Iraqis" with "construction of a market for a conquering armies corporations?"
Liberation my ass. Welcome to Iraq, a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Corporate America.
You do understand there is a whole other world outside the borders of the USA that is successfull Social Democracy (virtually EVERYONE else). Not everyone believes that CoOperation is unworkable. Some of us get by very well with collectivism. Further, Social Democracies (like Canada for instance..) is Socially Progressive with Freedom most would envy.
The world is NOT dominated by a ProCorporate, ProCompetition, ProSelfishness Worldview that is commonplace in America.
Please PLEASE give some credit to the rest of us... the hubris and arrogance is getting intolerable. Not everyone harbours contempt for his neighbour as a potential threat or source of suspicion.
The Right of "keeping what is yours" is NOT a basis on which to found a Community.
Tom Lehrer wrote this song ("Send the Marines") in 1969. It's scary that it's all still true... :)
When someone makes a move
Of which we don't approve,
Who is it that always intervenes?
U.N. and O.A.S.,
They have their place, I guess,
But first - send the Marines!
We'll send them all we've got,
John Wayne and Randolph Scott;
Remember those exciting fighting scenes?
To the shores of Tripoli,
But not to Mississippoli.
What do we do?
We send the Marines!
For might makes right,
And till they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
Till somebody we like can be elected.
Members of the corps
All hate the thought of war;
They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means.
Stop calling it aggression,
Ooh, we hate that expression!
We only want the world to know
That we support the status quo.
They love us everywhere we go,
So when in doubt, Send the Marines!
In a sense, intellectual property laws substitute a temporary monopoly for patronage. This allows the creator to reap patronage benefits through the marketplace of ideas, instead of relying on one aristocrat's misguided taste. Can you imagine what Dubya would sanction? Or Santorum?
Nightmares aside, the problem isn't with the concept of copyright, but with the way it has been institutionalized. (The abuse of copyright has been comcomitant with the overall corporate takeover of American Democracy, but that's for another rant.) A 7 year copyright with solid fair use rights is a great idea. A one hundred year limit with 50-year or total rights transfers being the norm is an abuse. The problem isn't with copyright - it's with the way copyright law has changed over the last 20 years.
Free exchange of ideas only takes place if the inventor has some reason to share the idea. Otherwise, human nature is to protect the idea and use it for your own benefit. Thus, elimination of intellectual property laws in this day & age would stifle expression of ideas, not increase it.
BTW, get arrested if you want credibility on the whole protest thing. Copying Eminem late night using campus computers isn't a protest statement unless you get caught (and don't back down). You wanna protest? Go to the front steps of the Capitol building & start clearly & publicly making & distributing CD's to which you do not have IP rights. Now that's a protest. Spend several years in jail & then you'll have a following.
Yes, Iraq is becoming a corporate colony of the United States of America.
There are far worse things it could be. The personal fiefdom of a brutal dictator, for example. However, the idea that the US is going in there for strictly altruistic reasons is pure B.S. The case that the invasion of Iraq was for national security reasons is not much stronger.
It's not all about oil either, though oil plays a role. Iraq is an extremely large potential market for US goods and services.
Here's the scenario:
US Oil companies pump lots of oil out of Iraq. But at the same they pump money in to Iraq. This raises the standard of living for the Iraqi people causing them to demand more consumer goods and services.
The same thing happens with the infrastructure. U.S. companies make lots of money rebuilding Iraq, but they also create Iraqi jobs in the process.
The U.S. controlled government makes mutually favorable trade agreements with the US, giving the US an untapped and open market.
US companies want laws favorable to their interests in Iraq, like they do in the US.
Since no one will notice copyright laws when they have no running water, now is the time to enact laws that favor the corporation over the consumer.
Don't get me wrong. I like capitalism. I like the free market. I supported the war in Iraq (to get rid of Saddam) Politically, I consider myself Conservative/Libertarian. I voted for Bush (or more accurately, against Gore)
However, to say the Government is being less than honest with the American people in Iraq is an understatement.
What cracks me up is the moral high-ground they all have; despite starting all of the holy wars, we still get told to view other religions as "barbaric" and "disrespectful".
The soon the bible is scientifically proven to be complete nonsence, the sooner we can get on with building that Eutopia it speaks of. Oh, and if the worlds oil runs out soon, that'll help as well.
The reasons for that would fill a book. Specifically, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" 2nd ed. I don't think it's available in the US as the author has won a prize as the most censored author in America but I'm sure Amazon.co.uk will sell you it. Remember to get the 2nd edition.
The short answer: Iraq is to be a "free trade zone" for the purpose of destabilising the region's economies. If it was as simple as that, of course, it wouldn't work since free trade would eat Iraq alive and spit out the ground down bones but this FTZ will be bankrolled by the US via the World Bank (51% owned by the US Treasury Dept.) so that it won't go the way of Argentina, South Africa, Thailand, Chile etc. It's all very complicated and boils down to a return to 19th century economics and all the great benefits they gave people (rich people, that is). Think "Robber Barons Take On The World": there are literally trillions of dollars at stake here.
That's why the religious parties in Iraq are not being invited to run the country despite having the majority of the population's support: they would throw the "liberators" out and tell them where to stick their free trade. And, wouldn't you? If I locked you in a room with Saddam Hussain for 25 years how grateful would you be when I let you out? Now replace me with Donald Rumsfeld and you with the Iraqi people; can you see why they are annoyed even after they've been freed?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
I have to confess--I didn't expect the US would move quite so blatantly or aggressively to recreate the middle-east as an American colony. Then again, I hadn't read the "Blueprint for a New American Century" yet. Scary shit, maynard.
I honestly believe that Blair figured he could direct and rein-in George "Warmonger" Bush a bit, and would be seen as a hero. Now he's in it up to his neck, and there's nowhere to shovel but deeper.
Nonetheless, the US government has clearly stated that its goal is to implement regime change in the middle-east as a means of extending their sphere of influence. They aren't even pretending to "liberate" anyone, except when talking to the press (which in the US at least, seems to lap it up uncritically). The rest of the world sees just how hypocritical it all is, but until we get China and the UK to stand firmly against the US, there's not much chance to stop them.
Having Rosen rewrite the (fairly intelligent) copyright laws into a hideous mess of excessive cash-protection doesn't surprise me at all. It's perfectly in line with the stated policy of forcibly instituting US-style legislation throughout the world.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
First the *Israeli-run* antiquities looters lobby wants to "free" the trade of Iraq's heritage, then a US congresman introduces legislation that changes Iraq's mobile phone standard from GSM to the American CDMA system and now Hillary *Rosen* of the RIAA wants to write the new "free" Iraq's copyright law and change it into one under which consumers have no rights.
Geez, what more "freedom" is in store for the Iraqi people?
How about Diane *Feinstein* rewriting the Iraqi firearms laws from ones that allow gun ownership to new "free" ones that ban everything more lethal than a potato peeling knife.
They are already kicking doors down searching for guns in homes and roadblocks. It's LEGAL (by Iraqi law) in Iraq for ANYONE to own an AK-47 machine gun.
Freedom New Style [TM] - Having an *alien* people run your affairs and tell you how you should feel about that.
We in the west should know we have tasted that freedom for decades. We learned how "outmoded" our old culture was and that we should be happy that there is a group of people from a *certain middle eastern region* who know best how to change it.
The Iraqi people don't know yet how "free" they're gonna be!
The thing the invaders always seem to forget is that the locals are far faster at getting organized, even if they don't have the same resources. In particular, it's essentially impossible to eliminate or supress the religious authorities in those countries and retain any popular support, so there is a network of clerics that remains in place even under oppressive governments such as Iraq. Under Saddan Hussein, the religious orders were permitted to continue as long as they kept out of politics, a situation which they were able to follow, but never fully accepted.
Back in Iran, these were the groups who organized the revolution that threw out the U.S-backed Shah, and organized a new ruling elite - that's why Iran immediately implemented fundamentalist Islamic laws when it happened. In Iraq, they have already organized the Shia majority into a political movement, now that they're free to do so. The demonstrations among the general population and demands for an Islamic government in Iraq have started rising rapidly.
Basically, the mullahs have an already established "transitional government". The question then becomes, how long will the occupying forces prevent the Islamic government from taking over?
Chances are that the occupiers are so against the idea that they will form their own interim, then "final" Iraqi government against the popular opinion, as in Iran. In that case, it will only be a matter of time before foreign involvement tapers off enough for a revolution to overthrow the imposed government, as happened in Iran.
Again.
I wonder what the Koran has to say about copyright...
Greg Palast has an interesting record regarding Investigative journalism. Unfortunately, because he actually does investigation, he is not quoted in the US.
2 8.html )
b le?client.id=utne_web_specials&story.id=10452 or even killed. source: http://www.lovearth.net/fortunateson.htm)
He was the first to talk about the Ballot issues within florida in the 2000 election, but when he tried to get it on the air in the US, (I believe it was with CBS), the editors there told him that his facts did not check out. When asked who they contacted to fact check, the editorial staff replied that they contacted Jeb Bush's office.
I'm not one to believe what someone tells me is true, but, looking at the facts, and putting it all together leads to a certain way of thinking.
1. Most of the government offices in Iraq were either bombed or looted. The only one not bombed or looted? the Oil ministry (thanks to US military guards. Source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/119505_oil
2. The US will install a government loyal to itself, IE a Secular Democracy. This at the same time that the shrub is tearing away the separation between church and state here.
3. People that oppose the bushes have a tendancy to get sued Source: http://www.utne.com/cgi-bin/udt/im.display.printa
"the difference between myself and a madman is that I am not mad" -Salvadore Dali
Then I looked closely at the Register article. The source of this "news" is one man: Greg Palast.
Who is Greg Palast? Here's a taste of what he's written.
In an interview Palast said, "This guy (Dictator Hugo Chavez) is the real voice of democracy in Venezuela. ... Chavez is the Nelson Mandela of his country."
He accused Bush of "ethnic cleansing of the voter rolls" in the 2000 Election. Then he tried to one-up Baghdad Bob with this statement: "The 2004 race may already be decided - and the vote's just a formality." If he would've used just a little more Saeed-speak, he might have said: "My initial assessment is that the candidates will all lose. In fact, they are already committing concession of the race to Bush. There are no candidates within 1000 miles of the Washington. Never!"
Palast claimed that Saddam is "a Frankenstien created by Bush." Then he tried to discredit Bush by saying: "In the USA, Bush has successfully put a turban and beard on Saddam Hussein - most Americans have no idea that Osama and Saddam have no connection." This is quite funny, now that we have detailed documents on the meetings between Osama and Saddam going back to the 1980s. We've known about other evidence for a long time. IMO, the al-Qaeda training camp we found in northern Iraq should have at least make you think that the ties were more likely to exist than not
From what I've read of Palast, his perception about the motives of the Bush administration couldn't be more off-base. He is a virulent Bush hater and is blinded by his rage. His columns and interviews are full of exaggerated ad hominem and over-the-top crackpot conspiracy theories. This guy is a kook and a muckraker.
But that's true of a democracy too, especially when there are more than two parties.
If the majority of Iraqis want a theocracy, should they be denied? Isn't that un-democratic?
Part of the problem here is that there are a lot of people that simply can't imagine that someone would freely choose not to have democracy. But such people exist in droves.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Where every four years, 51% (or higher - or about even or less in the last election) vote to enslave the rest of the population...
I don't see the difference...
I do see a difference in Switzerland where major laws such as changing bank secrecy or raising the tax rate have to go to a referendum where they are routinely voted down by the population...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!