U.S. Declares War on Intellectual Property Theft

bblazer writes "Reuters is running a story about a new US effort to stop intellectual property theft. From the article "The U.S. Justice Department on Tuesday outlined what it called its most sweeping crackdown on bootleg DVDs, fake designer goods, illegal music downloads and counterfeit drugs." It also goes on to say that media (movies and music) is highly affected, but so are products like batteries, baby food and Viagra."

Comments

And legality?

[metlin]

RIAA estimates that $2.6 billion worth of revenues are lost and the like through file-sharing - so what are they going to do about it?

Sue a kid in China or India for it? Unlikely, I think.

Re:And legality?

[Dillusionary]

You are exactly right. This has nothing to do with the benefit of others; this has everything to do with control and jobs for all the other dumbasses that can't get a job some where else. Why is it 67% of the prison population are drug related? Obviously this shit isn't working. Most likely someone up high got a hand out and no doing what the hand out required. Doesn't it seem more and more we are, we as in the US, are just as corrupt as IRAQ/N. Korea, except the fact that we have this illusion of freedom?

Re:And legality?

[Pxtl]

Hahah, did you not pay attention to the news? There were 10 million votes counted. That does not mean 10 million voters when you've a country with a slap-dashed voting infrastructure. The situation was so messy that Karzai was actually endorsing people to vote as many times as they wanted, rather than risk losing the multiple-voters' support. Voter registration slips were on the black market.

Re:And legality?

[vorpal22]

It was quite entertaining how you extrapolated so many things from my post that I never said, nor even believe.

I'm not saying that heroin is not addictive. Where did I make such a claim? Opiates can be quite addictive, and heroin is one of the most addictive drugs in this category. However, historically speaking, it is factual that in China, opium (raw opium being a mixture of opiates, primarily morphine but with significant quantities of codeine and thebaine) use paralleled the alcohol use of Great Britian. There was actually a British government study done way back that expected vastly different results, but came to this conclusion.

And *grins*... I assure you that I've never sold a single drug in my life. However, I can tell you that I've used both alcohol and opiates / opioids (morphine, meperidine, codeine, oxycodone) extensively in the past, and while I never got addicted to opiates / opioids and prefer them to alcohol, I have had problems with alcohol addiction.

I really don't understand where you get your figures in your "Let me put it plain and simple for you" paragraph. It strikes me that you made those up, but I may be wrong. I, personally, know no heroin users, but a friend of mine knows many, and the majority of them use very infrequently, and not intravenously (this would be akin to, say, funneling huge quantities of alcohol). Because of the illegality of heroin, you're unlikely to be aware of such responsible use - these people, because of the stigma attached to heroin use, are likely to keep a low profile and you'll likely never know it if you meet one of them.

Personally, I wouldn't touch the stuff, but I support everyone's right to make that decision for themselves. And I completely fail to see how I mentioned that it's okay to get addicted to heroin; I never said anything remotely resembling that. May I kindly suggest you read my posts more carefully in the future instead of blindly jumping to conclusions? I simply pointed out that many people in the past have lived their lives with roaring opiate / opioid addictions (largely laudanum, which, IIRC, is alcohol and opium or morphine) and functioned well. There are also alcoholics who function well; however, there are many more long term, dangerous, and irreversible consequences to alcohol abuse than there are to opiate abuse.

Re:And legality?

[EllisDees]

>Wow, someone is actually arguing that heroin is not addictive to most users? Geez, never though I'd see the day.

It's not. The vast majority of people who try heroin never become addicted. If you think that it is, provide some evidence to back it up.

http://www.users.on.net/~rmc/drugs.htm

"Research made unwillingly by the U.S. Army on its Vietnam War veterans showed that nearly half used heroin (95% pure), 7% of those stayed on it on return to the U.S.A. with only 1% of these being addicted. The research was forced on the U.S. Army because many soldiers claimed disability pensions on the grounds that heroin addiction is permanent and disqualifies the user from any sort of productive life. Originally the heroin was smoked until Authority clamped down and it became more cost-effective to inject.

The addiction rate for social ALCOHOL drinkers is 10% with another 5% "at risk". ("Addiction" is when stopping taking the drug leads to withdrawal symptoms not present before taking it. e.g. alcohol "Dependence" is when cessation means just returning to the previous status quo e.g. insulin.)"

>Let me put it plain and simple for you: if you try heroin once, you probably have a 75% chance of trying it a second time...

Honestly, are you getting your facts from a DARE bumper sticker, or what?

Re:It Will Never Work, And Here's Why

[syberanarchy]

Something I didn't think of before, but really illustrates my point:

These "IP" laws have really become like the speed laws. Your driver instructor tells you that yes, you can get fined, etc. for going 5 over the speed limit, or for putting the hood of your car over the white stop bar at traffic lights. But in reality, how much does this happen? (and spare me your "I live in a hick town where the one cop in town has a vendetta against my family so yes it happens" tales.)

Likewise, who ever gets sued for downloading a single mp3? How long will it take them to sue everyone? How long will it take them to sue enough folks to make anyone care? Will anyone care? The way I see it, I have about 8000 songs on my PC. Assuming I were a dirty pirate, and assuming they were all illegally aquired, if the RIAA came after me and demanded a 5000 dolalr settlement, I'd actually view myself as getting a pretty cheap deal, as opposed as to if I had gone through iTunes, etc.

They can't slap casual swappers with the "max fines" they advertise (250k per work,) because it would cause outrage. They're damned if they do, damned if they don't. I don't envy the RIAA at this point!

The new drug war?

[Anita Coney]

There is a Burger King/AOL advertisement about kids getting pulled over by a cop. They were essentially asked if the music they were listening to was stolen.

Will this be our future? Will an MP3 player in a car give probable cause to search for more stolen goods?!

I've always thought the real intent of drug laws were to give the government the ability to arrest anyone for any reason at any time. That's because there is no victim to testify against the person, only the cop who says he saw the person with drugs. And because it allegedly happens directly in front of the cop, the government doesn't have to worry about the person coming up with any alibi defense.

I think that copyright enforcement will become the new "victimless" crime of choice.

Re:It Will Never Work, And Here's Why

[Vicsun]

60 million people are a lot of people, but as many large numbers it's hard to conceptualize. To put it in contrast, in 2000 George 'Dubya' Bush got 50,456,002 votes (source: Wikipedia ). Does that mean there are more criminals walking the streets than people who voted for the president?
When there are so many people breaking a law, isn't it time to revise the law, rather than futilely try to enforce it?