Slashdot Mirror


US To Push Criminalization of IP Violations

Dr.Hair writes " Soon to be ex-Secretary of Commerce Don Evans speaks out on 'piracy' just prior to his last trip to China for negotiations. 'That means criminalizing the laws as opposed to (having) just civil laws...You've got to start putting people in jail.' The article points out that this lust for prosecutions extends from Evans to his successor, the American Chamber of Commerce, and the US Senate. "

58 of 714 comments (clear)

  1. Right Alongside by Stanistani · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now we can fill up our jails with even more people who are as dangerous as marijuana smokers...

    1. Re:Right Alongside by gspr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep. At least it'll be easy to distinguish the dangerous people from the harmless "criminals". The harmless ones will be in jail for IP infringement / stealing food / doing weak drugs, while the others will be out killing people.
      Good to know where you have people.

      Either that, or we'll just cut health care to build new prisons!

    2. Re:Right Alongside by Telastyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And to echo some overly paranoid/cynical comments: "Now the MPAA can prevent 'pirates' from voting against their friendly senators, similarly to marijuana convicts who are now unable to vote against the war on drugs."

    3. Re:Right Alongside by Phisbut · · Score: 3, Insightful
      China has "got to start putting people in jail" to show it is serious about cracking down on widespread counterfeiting and piracy that costs U.S. companies billions of dollars in lost sales every year, a top Bush administration official said.

      And of course, China has a real incentive of making sure U.S. companies don't lose money... I mean... of course, let's all bow down to Dubya, the great leader of Earth.

      --
      After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
      - The Tao of Programming
    4. Re:Right Alongside by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Um, having been beaten up on several occasions by "drunken assholery" I can tell you the contusions, bruised kidneys, and being beaten to unconciousness so said drunk can joyride on your motorcycle still requires and emergency room stay, and still results in damaged property.

      And the funny part is, in neither case was it the chucklehead's first brush with the law.

      You get drunk and assault somebody, it's the same as if you were sober and assaulted somebody. You are still a fucking violent offender.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    5. Re:Right Alongside by Monkelectric · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Tell that to 100 black guys serving 2 to 5 for possession.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    6. Re:Right Alongside by scowling · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, he should spend the rest of his life in jail for being a violent repeat offender. Absolutely.

      And it'd be nice if you'd get the fuck out of my Western society, too.

      --
      www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
  2. Copyright infringment already criminal in the UK by jobsagoodun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We lead the way in crypto-facism this time!

  3. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    China has "got to start putting people in jail" to show it is serious about cracking down on widespread counterfeiting and piracy that costs U.S. companies billions of dollars in lost sales every year, a top Bush administration official said.

    Why should China want to stifle it's own economy just to please Bush?

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      (I'm talking about political prisoners, wasn't sure how to word that.)

      detainees?

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      AC, it appears that you have stopped watching Fox News and repeating the mantra "Bush is The Leader Of The Free World" 43 times every hour. You have 1 hour to report to the nearest USA Federal Building for re-education or a warrant will be issued for your arrest!

  4. This IP crap is becoming old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I for one agree with the largely European stance of no IP/software patents. I agree with RMS on the values of sharing. Before long, and at this rate, companies will literally own the government. The srtong lobby for software and IP in general serves only to line people's pockets.
    The socialists are right on this one.
    And don't even give me that crap about the poor programmer who is trying to earn a living. I, too, work in IT and have a family to support. In the end, IP serves to hurt the people rather than help them. The only people it helps are the shareholders and lawyers who prosecute and defend.

    1. Re:This IP crap is becoming old... by mspohr · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "Before long, and at this rate, companies will literally own the government."

      I don't know if you've been paying attention, but the companies took over the government some time ago. Both of our USA political parties jump to meet the needs of business. Voters are bought with lies broadcast in the media (and paid for by business).

      You purpose in life here is to work hard (or go into debt) so that you can buy as much stuff as possible.

      Any questions?... get back to work and stop wasting time.

      /Mark

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  5. This is not necessarily bad... by paranode · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I think that people who break IP laws to a great degree probably should be punished to an extent with criminal law. However, there should be a clause that the person did it intentionally and with intent to defraud, because you don't want to be hauling Granny off to jail after the MPAA sues her because her grandkid installed Kazaa or something. Another thing that seriously needs reform is the maximum civil liability for these acts and that jail time be reasonable for the crime (not 15 yrs in federal prison).

    Sadly, as long as politicians are getting big contributions from the entertainment industry, the outlook for this kind of law is not so good because the real motivations are hidden and corrupt.

  6. Don't for a minute believe they won't do it. by Concern · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For all the people who haven't thought this through yet:

    When they come to lock you up, no one is going to stand up for you. Maybe the EFF will send you a Christmas card in prison.

    The propaganda has worked. No one in the public at large has any notion of the rights and freedoms they are in the process of losing, let alone what they mean.

    Society is 100% ready to accept zero-privacy, expensive, addled DRM solutions. They will have no sympathy for anyone doing a 4-8 stretch for "downloading." With one deft push from Comrade Gonzales, they will all line up to throw tomatoes at "developers of illegal software."

    My advice for you all is to read early accounts of the rise of the Soviet state, and/or especially the transition years in Eastern Europe. Totalitarianism has a very recognizable feel, even in the very beginning, before you can barely feel its grip, you can smell it's breath long before it starts to squeeze.

    --
    Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
    1. Re:Don't for a minute believe they won't do it. by node+3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He's talking about a new budding totalitarian state, not China or North Korea.

    2. Re:Don't for a minute believe they won't do it. by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Since when did you have the rights and freedoms to take something you did not pay for? If nobody pays for music and movies, there won't be many movies and music works worth taking. Want proof? Just look at any third world economy where IP laws are lax. Very little talent comes out of those sort of countries. Want free music? Then revert your country's laws back to third world standards. Just be prepared for your standard of living to drop accordingly. Be careful what you wish for, it just might come true.

      Mankind got by for countless milennia before this whole concept of "paying for music" started. Need I remind you that all over the world, there are these people called "musicians" who generally like to play on these things called "instruments" and produce noise called "music."

      Music isn't the issue. What is at issue is the insane idea that you can own music, and that your grandchildren can live off of performances that were recorded before they were even born, long after you are dead.

      Destroy the music industry, and music will survive. Indeed, it would probably do a bit better. Folk Festivals of late have devolved into drunk people covering the Beatles.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    3. Re:Don't for a minute believe they won't do it. by bcattwoo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Mankind got by for countless milennia before this whole concept of "paying for music" started....

      Destroy the music industry, and music will survive. Indeed, it would probably do a bit better. Folk Festivals of late have devolved into drunk people covering the Beatles.

      Ah, the old "today's music is crap that's not worth paying for, but I gotta steal it anyways" argument. Way to rationalize.

      There certainly are some musicians out there who play just for the love of music, but the ones who sell their music probably do so with the expectation of getting paid. If you don't want to pay for it, then by all means go find some free music. Taking something that someone else produced with the expectation of payment, no matter how crappy you might think it is, is still stealing.

    4. Re:Don't for a minute believe they won't do it. by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mankind got by for countless milennia before this whole concept of "paying for music" started. Need I remind you that all over the world, there are these people called "musicians" who generally like to play on these things called "instruments" and produce noise called "music."

      And how much quality work is available to us from these older times, where the work wasn't paid for by an audience, a king, or a benefactor? Not much. Even Mozart's brilliance was bottled for money. Most artists need to make a living to survive.

      Download that movie for free, and directly or indirectly, you are depriving the hundreds and thousands of crew members and artists that worked to create it and future movies. It's just a fact.

      Music isn't the issue. What is at issue is the insane idea that you can own music, and that your grandchildren can live off of performances that were recorded before they were even born, long after you are dead.

      If that's the issue, then work to change copyright laws. However, you don't have the right to infringe copyrights now, and most of the people on slashdot that do it are not infringing these old works you mention, but the latest coming out of hollywood and the media giants.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    5. Re:Don't for a minute believe they won't do it. by Pofy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Taking something that someone else produced with
      >the expectation of payment, no matter how crappy
      >you might think it is, is still stealing.

      You are not taking something someone else produced, you are making a new copy that happens to be identical to something else. That is why we need copyright laws and why theft laws does not work out. However, they are still very different. The issue with copyright is NOT if you pay or not, that is irrellevant really (it might affect the penalties though), it does NOT determine if we have copyright infringement though. Geting something without paying for it is NOT copyright infringement either (or theft). If I give a chair to a friend, he got it without paying, neither theft, nor copyright infringement.

      Same with a book or mucis CD, I can give it to a friend and he got it without paying, not theft not copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is about the creation of something new, and when that is not allowed.

      For normal physical things, that does not apply, I can make a fence identical to yours and it is not theft (nor copyright infringement. If I make a new copy of your book you wrote, then it is copyright infringment (but not theft), regardless of any payment. you might even give away copies of it for free and not demand payment, it is STILL copyright infringement if I make a copy of it.

      By your argumentation, giving something away, regardles of if there is copyright infringement or not is theft and should be illegal. If I give away (or sell) my car, the one who made it did not recieve payment but might expect or want to, there is nothing illegal with it though.

    6. Re:Don't for a minute believe they won't do it. by thomasa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      copyrights just are another form of socialism. Paid for
      and enforced by the government.

  7. Put everyone in jail! by stratjakt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Jail doesn't work.

    They call it the Department of Corrections, which is pure political bullshit. They've never corrected anything.

    It's necessary to remove violent offenders from society for societies safety, but repeat offenses are high. Being in prison doesn't "teach" or "fix" or correct the problem.

    Yet in America, we've set the system up so that virtually every last citizen belongs behind bars under the law.

    We can start jailing kids for running kazaa, and it won't solve the problem.

    It'll just increase the tax burden for the handful of people who manage to not get caught.

    Everyone has done one of the following: tried drugs, infringed a copyright, exceeded the speed limit, drank alcohol underage, bought a violent video game for someone under 18, etc...

    Why don't we just run razor wire along the coasts and borders, and declare everyone incarcerated?

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:Put everyone in jail! by the_rev_matt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is a very good reason for this. The prison-industrial complex is made up of companies that make lots and lots of campaign donations. In return for this, they get more and more legislation guaranteeing them more inmates.

      When prison is a for-profit venture, rather than a safe-society venture, then the powers that be have a vested interest in throwing as many people in jail as possible. The number one purpose of our prison system is not rehabilitation, correction, safety, or even punishment. It is to turn a profit. Added bonus: reduces the unemployment numbers and provides cheap labor to other big companies.

      --
      this is getting old and so are you

      blog

    2. Re:Put everyone in jail! by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Insightful
      There is a very good reason for this. The prison-industrial complex is made up of companies that make lots and lots of campaign donations. In return for this, they get more and more legislation guaranteeing them more inmates. When prison is a for-profit venture, rather than a safe-society venture, then the powers that be have a vested interest in throwing as many people in jail as possible. The number one purpose of our prison system is not rehabilitation, correction, safety, or even punishment. It is to turn a profit. Added bonus: reduces the unemployment numbers and provides cheap labor to other big companies.

      As comforting as the notion of conspiracy is, the truth is usually much worse. Draconian laws are being passed out of ignorance and stupidity, and the prison industry is merely taking advantage of the increased demand for "incarceration services". The idea of a "evil mastermind" behind it is comforting because a central authority can (theoretically) be arrested/exposed/discreditted, but I don't think you can convincingly demonstrate that the prison industry has ever even tried to lobby for harsher laws. But then there's some that say lack of evidence is the surest sign the conspiracy is working, and what can you say to that?

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  8. Imagine the reaction by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Imagine the reaction if senior Chinese officials started calling for the internal laws of the US to be altered to suit Chinese business interests.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
    1. Re:Imagine the reaction by cfulmer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that it is extremely difficult for a US company to actually collect on a judgement against a (red) Chinese citizen -- the Chinese courts are very loathe to allow US companies to collect monetary damages from Chinese interests. Criminal laws don't have the same problem, as it would be a Chinese prosecutor.

      Criminal charges for copyright infringement are really a bad idea -- civil courts allow the copyright owner to decide whether to enforce a copyright. The civil requirement also more/less allows people to copy orphaned works with little risk, because it's not clear who owns the works -- that's a good thing, because without somebody infringing a copyright of unclear ownership, those orphaned works deteriorate over time. If you criminalize it, then the gov't could say "Hey! You're copying that 1943 work without permission from the copyright owner. We're going to prosecute, and never mind the fact that we (1) have no idea who actually owns it and (2) don't know if they care that you're copying it."

    2. Re:Imagine the reaction by Ingolfke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The enforcement and creation of the IP laws is a commtiment China made in order to join the WTO. What these laws do is essentially stop Chinese companies from wholesale copying other company's IP and then manufacturing it in large quantities. The Secretary is speaking about U.S. business interests because we have a large stake in the WTO and because HE IS THE U.S SECRETARY OF COMMERCE! What is he supposed to talk about, French business interests?

  9. Pot and Pirates Togather at Last! by Saratoga+C++ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm honestly not for software piracy but this seems to pinch a nerv a bit.

    We're filling up our jails with Pot users and Pirates. When does this start seeming to be a waste of taxpayer's money?

    Looks like a way to reduce further tax revinue and increase costs to the (now fewer in number) tax payers.

    Great job guys.

  10. Rules that are meant to be broken. by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Insightful
    These rules are meant to be broken. In both senses of the word.
    "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens' What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

    - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

    The most useful kinds of rules are the ones that everyone violates, and that are therefore unworkable. In other words - rules are made to be broken.

    1. Re:Rules that are meant to be broken. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think its funny how people rag on Ayn Rand (and I only agree with her philosophies in a partial sense myself) just becuase she is Ayn Rand without actually coming to the plate and saying why they dislike some or part of her philosophy.

      Its really funny because the majority of people who hate her so much that they go into a blind fury (and call her names rather than actually counter her arguments) are the ones who say that we need more government controls to deal with power hungry corps (which is fine in of itself).

      The real irony here is that this quote is where Rand talks about dictiatorial governments where law after law is being passed just to keep society docile and in check. You'd think that most people here who hate corporatist governments could at least acknowledge what she is saying applies here too.

      I'm not asking that people accept and agree with everything Rand says but jesus people, you're going to have to get over your own prejudices to see that while her philosophy may differ from yours, she is at least agreeing with you on that the corporation should not be merged with the government.

  11. Huh? by paranode · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This isn't about Bush at all. This is about Hollywood wanting more money and China building an economy off of illegally reproduced and distributed material.

    You can hardly make this into a vast right-wing conspiracy by mentioning Bush when practically everyone in Hollywood is a Bush-hating left-winger.

    1. Re:Huh? by neil.pearce · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Would this be the very same Hollywood that sited itself on the West coast
      of America to avoid paying Edison his rightful dues?

  12. Great. by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Because the one thing we need in this nation is more inmates.

    Remember, kids, it's all about being tough on crime. If, for some inexplicable reason, crime continues to exist--you're simply not being tough enough. Throw more people in prison; make the sentences longer to keep 'em there. To hell with reform; make sentences punitive and harsh for the sake of scaring people straight. It'll work eventually, right?

    1 out of 37 Americans have served time in prison. Our incarceration rates continue to skyrocket. How much more will it take for people to throw their hands in the air and say "Enough!"?

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    1. Re:Great. by radtea · · Score: 3, Insightful


      Things like incarceration are driven by ideology, not rationality. The U.S. has a high incarcertation rate because a majority or sizable minority of Americans really believe against all evidence that putting people in jail is an effective means to combat crime. It just "feels right" or "makes sense" that the threat of jail will reduce crime.

      Once you realize that this is an ideological or religious argument (epistemologically ideology and religion are indistinguishable) you'll realize that no practical consequences will ever have an effect on people's beliefs in this regard. The fact that Christ never comes back doesn't deter Christians from believing he's going to Real Soon Now. The fact that non-democratic socialist countries were abject economic failures didn't stop ideologues from claiming that non-democratic socialism was more efficient.

      So until there is a major ideological shift in the U.S., and parents start teaching their children that the threat of jail doesn't have a big effect on crime, but reduction in poverty does, we'll continue to see the "paradox" of high crime and high incarceration rates in the U.S.

      --Tom

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  13. US gov works for the corps..newsflash? by N3wsByt3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The IFPI/RIAA/MPAA and it's current USA puppet the bush-government (and a lot of senators and other so-called representatives of the people) is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it. If they would act specifically against mass-counterfeiting for commercial purposes then, certainly when health issues are at stake, it might have some validity, but everyone knows such laws will be used against all others as well, before you can blink your eye. And yet, it will go as with the war on drugs: something you can never beat, and something that is sustained with unvalid reasonings and making a lot of FUD.

    First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music/movies. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain.

    Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?

    It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare (http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/ freenet/website/pages/fairshare.php?rev=1.1).

    And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.

    And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).

    It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.

    But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.

    --
    --- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
  14. So what are we going to do about these guys? by ShamusYoung · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So the Chineese govt. murders 800-2600 peaceful protesters in Tiananmen Square in Peking in 1989. They fobid women from having more than one child and force millions of Chineese women to have abortions. They support various thug leaders around the globe and insist they own Tiawan.

    I know! Let's put pressure on them to put people in jail for stealing software.

    Piracy is rampant in China and the problem is real, but it isn't killing anyone. Do any of these rotten bastards have any sense of proportion?

    --
    --This sig is in beta. Please let us know abut any errors you find.
  15. Re:Commercial Piracy ONLY nned apply here by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "BUT, the law needs to be very clear and unambiguous that it can't be used against someone uploading for free on BitTorrent or just selling a couple copies to his buddies."

    Why not? Do you realize that the doctrine of equal protection makes your desire completely unfeasable (any such law would be unconstitutional!)

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  16. It's all about context. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If you're smoking marijuana in the privacy of your own home, I don't give a fuck. It's not my business. However, if you are high as a kite and get in your car, then it becomes my business. The same goes for drinking. I don't care if you do it in your own home, but when you get on the road it creates a problem. I think the laws should be the same for alcohol and marijuana (and similar drugs). Free to use in the privacy of somebody's home (or a bar, I suppose), but if you are caught driving under the influence you will be given no mercy. I still think "hard" drugs, like crack and heroin, should be illegal. However, I wish they would put more time into pursuing the dealers rather than the users.

    1. Re:It's all about context. by vorpal22 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The majority of drug users consider alcohol to be a hard drug.

      Alcohol is physically addictive.
      Withdrawal from alcohol can kill you (unlike heroin withdrawal).

      An old study by the British Empire in China regarding the patterns of opium consumption revealed that China's opium use largely paralleled Britain's alcohol use.

    2. Re:It's all about context. by Eccles · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I otherwise agree with you, but...

      I still think "hard" drugs, like crack and heroin, should be illegal.

      Alcohol can kill its users with an overdose (or choking on vomit.)

      Alcohol can kill its chronic users (cirrhosis, heart disease, etc.)

      Users of alcohol can kill others via drunk driving or other acts done while under the influence.

      Users of alcohol can have deformed babies (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.)

      What can other drugs do that is in any way worse?

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  17. Nano Tech And Birth Control by gtm256 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wonder what happens when things like "birth control and break pads" really do become IP. I know it's still science fiction, but I've heard a lot about how nano technology might be able to build objects at the molecular level. What do you think will happen when you can push a button and make anything you want for free? Will companies continue to push for criminalization? And if so how much can our natural movements be constrained before it becomes incredibly oppressive?

  18. Looking at many of the posts here... by mark-t · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It never ceases to amaze me how many people will try to justify or defend a person's "right" to infringe on copyright.

  19. Life in Jail for nothing by Simonetta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is so true.

    Someone could go to jail for life without parole for:

    1) Getting into a fight in the schoolyard when they're 16...

    2) Getting caught with the microscopic resin of cannibus on a pipe that they found on the ground..

    3) Listening to music on an iPod or Walkman...

    Of course, it goes without saying that no rich, white, republican kid will ever be bothered by this type of insanity that passes for justice in the USA. Only blacks, latinos, and middle-class whites will be subjected to the guiding light of the American justice system.

    It also goes without saying that the legislators who are pushing for these insane laws to be passed are being paid thousands of dollars in bribes ('campaign contributions') from the private prison corporations who will be making $30,000 a year for each new 'dangerous criminal' serving life-in-prison-without-parole in a corporate prison.

    If you are a citizen of the European Community or some other stable country with a basic tradition of justice, don't come to the USA. Don't even visit here. It's just too dangerous. The republicans have just gone fucking nuts. Visit Canada (in the summer) or Mexico (in the winter). Avoid the USA. Seriously.

    1. Re:Life in Jail for nothing by Wateshay · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Someone could go to jail for life without parole for:

      1) Getting into a fight in the schoolyard when they're 16...

      2) Getting caught with the microscopic resin of cannibus on a pipe that they found on the ground..

      3) Listening to music on an iPod or Walkman...


      1) Unless the crime is especially heinous and results in trial as an adult (e.g. premeditated murder), the schoolyard fight would be expunged at age 21.

      2) In most places, a first offense for possession of small amounts of marijuana is a misdemeanor.

      3) I don't see anyone suggesting that possession of copyrighted works be criminalized. Hell, it's not even an actionable civil issue in the U.S. The only thing that's going to possibly get you in trouble is distribution.


      Of course, it goes without saying that no rich, white, republican kid will ever be bothered by this type of insanity that passes for justice in the USA. Only blacks, latinos, and middle-class whites will be subjected to the guiding light of the American justice system.


      Well, since nobody--black, white, rich, or poor--will be subjected to the insane suggestion you make above, there's not really anything more I can add to this.


      It also goes without saying that the legislators who are pushing for these insane laws to be passed are being paid thousands of dollars in bribes ('campaign contributions') from the private prison corporations who will be making $30,000 a year for each new 'dangerous criminal' serving life-in-prison-without-parole in a corporate prison.


      Well, since most states don't even have privately owned prisons, I somehow doubt Congress is cooking up laws aimed solely at providing more inmates to the private prison system.


      If you are a citizen of the European Community or some other stable country with a basic tradition of justice, don't come to the USA. Don't even visit here. It's just too dangerous. The republicans have just gone fucking nuts. Visit Canada (in the summer) or Mexico (in the winter). Avoid the USA. Seriously.


      You obviously know nothing about how things really work in the U.S. If you seriously think Mexico is a safer place to travel than the U.S., you're the one who's gone "fucking nuts".
      --

      "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."

  20. The punishment shouldn't be too harsh... by Dutchmaan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If a U.S. soldier can get six months for ordering some Iraqis pitch off of a bridge, then an offense for IP violation should SURELY be less than that, right???

    Now before you inevitably mod me down for the previous comparison, actually consider it... and then consider who our government truly represent based on how it treats it's criminals in relation to their status of wealth and/or power in the system.

  21. Nietzsche comes to mind by The+I+Shing · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong."

    The thing about these statements that bothers me is that the industries that are affected by the piracy are doing just fine economically. Movie ticket sales are brisk, CD sales are stellar, and people are flocking to concerts, paying top dollar to see their favorite artists, and yet the industry representatives are acting as though the entire future of American entertainment is in jeopardy. Is it, really? Pop stars and movie stars, as well as the executives of the companies that promote and use them, live lives of luxury that would make the wealthiest, most powerful emperors in the history of human civilization green with envy. They are flown from one 5-star hotel to another in private jets, and are drivin in limosines to the finest restaurants in town, treated like royalty by hordes of fawning, obsequious servitors.

    I doubt that the lifestyles of the rich and famous are in any danger of bumping down a notch because a few street vendors in Beijing are hawking copies of their movies and albums.

    --
    You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
  22. IP violations by mabu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When I first read the headline I thought, "Finally some cooperation between the US and China over spamming, phishing and other IP-based dubious activities."

    I should have known this was all about protecting the interests of a few large corporations and not having anything to do with making the world safer for everyone.

    I respect the right of companies to protect their intellectual property. What disgusts me is the unnaturally high priority these issues have over more important problems which have less to do with corporate profit, but directly affect more people.

  23. Soon will come the day by earthforce_1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When China feels strong enough to tell the US where to go and how to get there. And from the rate things are going, that day is not far off, with the Chinese economy growing by leaps and bounds while the US is bled white in Iraq. Unfortunately, it will also be a sad day for Taiwan.

    --
    My rights don't need management.
  24. Hello PATRIOT act for corporations. by gelfling · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well you can murder someone, actually murder them and get 8 years as opposed to waving a laser pointer at a plane and getting 25 years. So it stands to reason that all you fuckwits who elected an administration who believes that a corporation has the same civil and legal rights as a person woyuld also champion laws that turn civil or contract disputes into criminal laws.

    Next up; downloading music will land you in Attica.

    It really IS time to overthrow the state.

  25. Jailing Chinese won't stop piracy by Anita+Coney · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Think of all the piracy here in the US where we have a cultural history which respects IP. You can download music, software, movies, etc, all for free. In cities it's quite common to be able to buy pirated movies and music. In other words, there is a LOT of piracy.

    For decades under Communist rule IP was regarded as being owned by the people. In other words, there is no cultural background which required a respect of IP. In China there are no real music stores. Nearly all music sold is pirated. Artists make money from performing on TV and doing advertisements for other products. In fact I recently read an article where no one in China publishes a top 100 sales list for music because it'd be impossible to determine.

    Putting Chinese in jail for violating IP simply will not work to change a 100 year old tide. All it would do is piss off a LOT of people and I doubt that the Chinese government would be willing to do that.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  26. Not even close. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    You get drunk and assault somebody, it's the same as if you were sober and assaulted somebody

    If you go drunk with the intent to (ie. to muster up the courage to) assault somebody in particular, then maybe. Otherwise, get real.
    1. Re:Not even close. by westlake · · Score: 3, Insightful
      If you go drunk with the intent to (ie. to muster up the courage to) assault somebody in particular, then maybe. Otherwise, get real.

      Get real yourself. You drink, you drive, you kill someone, the charge can still be homicide:

      The most important single fact to remember about intoxication is that in most courts, intoxication will not negate the element of recklessness. In other words, if a particular element of a crime can be satisfied by a mental state of recklessness, D's intoxication will be irrelevant. Responsibility

  27. A minor point by TiggertheMad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was reading the parent's quote that we are telling China to put more people in prison for IP violation. At the same time, the US has been pressuring China over human right issues. I guess the message we are sending them is something akin to, 'Throw more people in jail, but be nice to them, too.'

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  28. Moot Point by WebCowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Fact is, it is extremely unlikely that the Chinese would request that the US alter its laws.

    That's because US laws are already quite favourable to Chinese business interests. Furthermore, US Corporations generally bend over backwards to accomodate their Chinese hosts. In terms of potential market size, US is a big fish, but China is a whale. Guess who's going to set the rules of the game?

    In any case, I think we are beyond telling China to play by our rules or we'll take our marbles home, because they have enough marbles of their own and they play the game here too. "Enforce copyright or face sanctions" would not ever work. Sanctions haven't ousted Castro from Cuba after all these decades (even without Soviet support) and it wouldn't be so much as a flea bite for China.

    Odd as it is to say about "Communist" China I'd venture to say an economic carrot would be more effective. If the US made a convincing argument that strict enforcement of copyrights would result in millions/billions more money to the government, then the Chinese government will be all too happy to throw street vendors in gulags and steamroll over their $2 copies of WinXP.

  29. 12% of world population, 25% of world prision pop. by TheLittleJetson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    LAND OF THE FREE INDEED.

  30. An economy built on theft? Step right up! by Dogtanian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The whole point is that, to Chinese industry (and Korea, too), every bit of hard intellectual work that the the western world does is simply considered free for the taking. They are building their economy on theft, and figuring that they can build up a culture of actual innovation some other day when they no longer have people smarter than them to steal from.

    Oh, the irony.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    1. Re:An economy built on theft? Step right up! by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So what? I'm not talking about the past. I'm talking about right now, and about the hugely (and rapidly) changing nature of what we do. Just because someone else (not you, not me) did something in the past doesn't mean that we should ignore the fact that it's being done right now by someone else (as if things won't somehow be just in some cosmic way unless someone else makes the same mistakes).

      Slavery was wrong. We did something about it, losing untold thousands of lives in the process. But in Africa, you've got it all still happening, and some people seem to think that we've got no moral standing to complain about it or point it out. The people who owned slaves, or fought to keep them, had no moral standing. But that was in the past. There were Germans who killed millions of people... but that's not who's running the show there now, either.

      I don't steal IP - I create it for a living. I've got the right to seek intervention when someone steals it from me, and the obligation to see to it that the fastest growing ecomomy in the world (China) doesn't come apart at the seams because it's built on a stolen-IP house of cards. It's not irony, it's called getting your act together and learning from the past. Our laws are still muddled on this front, but at least there's something there to work on. Much of the rest of world isn't muddled: they're completely clear on their willingness to institutionally rob programmers, engineers, musicians, architects, and every other creative professional blind. Industries in China and Korea steal from each other, too, but there's not enough industrial innovation there yet for them to really want to change their ways in their own defense.

      You want irony? Irony is that if China were to truly stop IP theft, people there would be forced to really, really innovate and compete - and then we'd have a different, possibly bigger problem: 1.3 billion (!) people gunning for us on a level playing field. But that's the sort of confrontation that works out better for everyone. Rational competition works, but only when we're all playing by something like the same rules.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  31. Re:Off-Topic: How Would You Control It? by Maniakes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    their economic system doesn't always impose the costs of raising children onto the parents. That alone would stop population growth--people don't have children if they can't afford them.

    This is worth emphasizing.

    One of the main reasons why first-world countries tend to have much lower birth rates than third world countries is that children cost money in the former but make money in the latter.

    Almost all first world countries heavily subsidize health care and education, but 20+ years of food, clothing, and shelter, not to mention college education and all the little luxuries that are commonplace in our socities, adds up to a heck of a lot of money before our kids are ready to pull their own weight.

    In third world countries, especially the ones with the worst population problems, there's not much in the way of college or luxuries for anyone. And in a society where most people are subsistance farmers, it's not very long before the little ones are old enough to help with the weeding, or to go to town and work in the Nike factory.

    --
    A legparnasom tele van angolnaval.