Slashdot Mirror
Infringement 'Detrimental To the Public Health, Safety'
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has declared that copyright infringement 'substantially interferes with the interest of the public in the quality of life and community peace, lawful commerce in the county, property values, and is detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the county's citizens, its businesses and its visitors.' You might laugh, but that means they can close up a property for up to one year for violations of the anti-infringement ordinance [PDF] and the owner can be fined $1,000 for each infringing work produced on site. Not to mention the penalties in the PRO-IP Act, which just sailed through the House."
I imagine all but a few of the candidates are squarely in the camp of the MPAA/RIAA if they are aware of copyright issues at all.
But more Americans use filesharing than will vote in the election - or at least I know that more shared files in 2003, when I found the figures, than voted for George Bush in 2000.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
All governments become more aristocratic over time. They serve the needs of a smaller and smaller elite few, to the detriment of the greater and greater majority.
Then the people rebel, and the cycle starts over again.
I was just about to say that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors 'substantially interferes with the interest of the public in the quality of life and community peace, lawful commerce in the county, property values, and is detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the county's citizens, its businesses and its visitors.'
So copyright infringement and public health that one I thought pretty improbable myself... but how about this one: "Hate Crime" and infringement. Watch as the ADL and "Southern Poverty Law Center" get in on the act.
How many companies who currently violate the GPL and LGPL can these new laws be used against?
--jeffk++
ipv6 is my vpn
Since when were laws ever enforced against corporations?
is that copyright infringement cures cancer. And the common cold. And male pattern baldness. Also, it can be used to make any car run on water. Clearly, it's a cover-up.
Given that most of the victims of copyright infringement are based in Los Angeles County and have contributed greatly to the county's economy, why wouldn't the board of supervisors denounce it?
Now, whether Los Angeles County should dictate public policy to the rest of the country, which isn't as dependent on copyright, is another issue entirely.
I for one welcome our new copyright overlords!
This about says it all
Copyright infrigement is only detrimental to the health and safety of those who abuse copyright in the first place. The common people do not suffer when their neighbor burns a DVD. The local economy is not negatively affected by the "lost sale", because the money not spent on copyrighted materials is more likely to be spent locally on other goods or services, instead of being funneled to out-of-state gluttons.
As much as I want artists to be fairly compensated, I strongly disagree with the application of copyright law. Litigation never solved anything in this world, it only creates more hatred for one another. It goes against the very purpose of law by promoting and supporting inequality, which is directly detrimental to the health and safety of everyone.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Didn't you see the EOM?
No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
From the ordinance (note the use of the terms "improperly labelled" and "sell"):
Then again, maybe my reading of it is incorrect. That's not to say laws don't have a funny way of being interpreted and reinterpreted, or used opportunistically by law enforcement. Worst case scenario? Instead of having your car impounded when you find yourself driving down Sunset Boulevard late one Saturday evening looking for blackjack and hookers and meeting up with an undercover officer, you get your car impounded for what's playing on your iPod.
That's what's so insidious about the current copyright reign of terror. It's not about AC/DC, it's about freedom of press and without that you and I will never learn of those other serious abuses you are talking about. Real families have already been thrown out of their homes and stripped of their life savings on the flimsiest of evidence about sharing RIAA crap that both of us can agree is trivial. If it's so trivial, why submit to such massive punishment? Don't be fooled, though, this is all about control of public knowledge, opinion and culture. It includes control of entertainment but it's also about domestic spying and neutralization of political opposition such as yourself.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
The media, movies, web, just about everything is full of proud Americans banging on about the freedoms enshrined in the constitution, but it seems you guys don't know how to use them. Obvious corrupt crap like this which is precisely what your 2nd amendment is for.
Now it may seem like I'm trolling here, but stay with me a moment. Your right to bare arms is not there so you can all be badass gangstas, cowboys or teenage psycho-killers. It's so you can remind your governments at all levels that they serve you, not the other way around.
March on these fuckers, boot them out and then raid warehouses and shops of legitimate DVDs, CDs, etc. Dump the lot in the bay. Have a big L.A. DVD party and stop being such pussies.
Okay, so maybe I am trolling a bit, but at least I'm shooting for Insightful Troll. You know it makes sense.
I don't therefore I'm not.
Well if copyright infringement is so detrimental, why aren't we abolishing copyright laws? That would make infringement impossible!
It scares that there maybe those who actually believe these things they say about "copyright infringement". As if (US) American prisons aren't full enough, I predict the government building new ones for to hold the dam pirates. Colonial attacks against real pirates only barely succeeded, and being a sea fearing pirate takes energy. Copyright infringement takes much less energy.
And on a side note, could you guys "pirating" via cameras in theatres just stop it? At least out of respect for art in general. There is currently no good way to duplicate a movie via cam, the quality is terrible. If people can't wait for it to come out dvd let them buy a ticket to the nearest theatre.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
This ordinance likely only applies to physical articles and also is likely pre-empted by federal copyright law. Duh.
The law is not an ass. No really.
You're only looking at this from the consumer end, which is hardly surprising given that this is /.
/. is that the "if" clause above is nonsense, and that it's intuitively obvious that online distribution of music and movies for free has no effect whatsoever on the sales for real money of that music and those movies.
But in Los Angeles, as someone else noted, you have the center of the movie industry, and one of the centers of the music industry. If it is correct that the fact that millions of people are distributing tunes and movies for free is depriving the folks in LA County who make music and movies of their income, then, yeah, I'd say there is a big impact on the LA economy. If movie companies and recording companies start hemorrhaging money, then they stop not only paying fat salaries to studio heads, but also start laying off janitors and secretaries, and, since those CEOs will be forgoing their bonuses, the number of Lexuses and plasma TVs sold will also go down, and a bunch of car and Best Buy salesmen are going to lose their jobs or take pay cuts.
Of course, the conventional wisdom here on
That the LA government is pulling this is no surprise. They're horribly corrupt. Phrases like "detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare" are well-known to be excuses for imposing dictatorship.
Look at the outright war the LA government is waging against hot dog vendors who want to sell bacon dogs. Is it any surprise LA is cracking down on freedom even more?
It's time for LA residents to use the second amendment for what it's supposed to be used for: protecting.themselves from the government.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
Land of the not so free and home of the stupid. I lived in CA for six years, nothing they come up with surprises me a bit.
US federal copyright law explicitly preempts state copyright laws. I suspect therefore that this ordinance is invalid. (Cities, counties, etc. are delegated their powers by the state, so the fact that this is a county ordinance not a state law makes no difference, I don't think.) Any lawyers out there want to confirm or deny this?
So, your suggesting the L.A. government be the source of supply of fresh long pork for Chef Jeffrey Dalmer?
That is okay. Los Angeles is "detrimental to public health [and] safety". This is just another reason to avoid that noxious cesspool.
It is too bad the PRO-IP act is not confined to a similarly avoidable geographical expanse.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
The entertainment industry is based on copyright, and LA is dependent on the entertainment industry. It's not really a surprise.
They just don't like boring news. You can listen to NPR if you want to take a nap, but it you want something to keep you awake while you're driving, you listen to KFI (my apologies to people who don't live in southern California, I'm sure you know what kind of radio station I'm talking about). It doesn't matter how offensive or stupid it is, as long as it's entertaining.
Just because someone can vote doesn't mean the government serves them.
There's a hundred things in front of it that are more important. It's not like you'll die if you can't download videos for free. You've got to keep things in perspective.
That's their argument right? If you break IP laws your pro-Hitler, ok it's a summary but wasn't Hitler for Draconian laws?
This time next year, the LA County Sheriff will be adding "copyright infringers" to the list of kidnappers, rapists, robbers and murderers he's caught over the past year. Seriously though-this seems WAY over the top!
Have a look at the history.
When the US was infringing Charles Dickens' copyright, was the US feted to be a third world country because of the the damage to their society?
This is a load of bollocks.
You're going to complain about corporations' corrupt power to a bigger instance of corporations' corrupt power? Good luck with that.
Lol land of the free.
I was about to say 13256278887989457651018865901401704640, but it appears this number is private property.
"It's only for going after terrorists, pedophiles and drug dealers. Common people have nothing to fear. Trust us." Seriously people, why do you keep gobbling on this bullshit?
Germany: most popular news paper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild_Zeitung. Not quite as primitive as the Sun but close.
:-)
According to the Wikipedia article their sales are declining, however, so there is still hope for Germany
C - the footgun of programming languages
I'm beginning to be terrified that the war on copyright infrigement, and the war on terror, are getting the momentum that the War on Drugs now has, with no end in sight even though it plainly does not, and cannot, ever work.
expandfairuse.org
oligarchy is what you mean. an aristocratic system actually addresses the needs of the lower classes, an oligarchy just walks on them
The thing that I've always found amusing about how the entertainment industry is "losing" money when people pirate their stuff is they "claim" that if pirating didn't exist their sales would increase.
So what the hell makes them think we'd buy their lame warez if we had to pay for them?
There's no guarantee that if you took it away more money would wind up in the coffers of these idiots. I think there's more economic loss to bureaucratic corruption and fat cat doublespeak lawyers then there is to infringement.
Anyone else read that as "Immigrants detrimental to public health and safty"?
Then it must be right? After all it is the land of the freedom to sue anyone with money to make a quick buck these days am i right? Clearly every copied photo and quote should in this digital age be used as an excuse to extort a quick buck without proof of lack of fair use/dealing. Which will soon be toast since laws serve to protect the corporations that lobby groups/governments seem to suckle from these days... After the whole torrent spy thing its clear the war on copyrights by the big fatty groups is more important then innovation/adapting. Its sad they think countless lawsuits and attempting to kill p2p will help them in anyway.
You wanna know what is really a crime? How the USA treats its people and seems to think it can just control all laws of all countries when it comes to protecting there theoretical profits. Its a pity that every other nation in the world is not so easy to get to roll over and play dead.
Presumably the President will have the backing of at least one of the major parties, and if he's popular or savvy then he might actually get bipartisan support. "Powerless git" indeed. You're thinking of GWB, who is currently powerless due to being a lame duck.
I can see it now: bat-wielding RIAA enforcers giving "helpful advice" on how you might not want to download that file... "Could be bad for your health..."
I too don't believe in Imaginary Property, but that's not the worst problem. There's a far greater corporate-based evil perpetrating society, brainwashing all the sheeple into believing its ingenious fallacies. I am referring, of course, to money stored digitally in a bank, or as I like to call it, "Imaginary Money"
I mean, it's not like they physically store your money anywhere, they just store some bits on the computer, and those bits could be easily copied for everyone's benefit. It's not any equivalent to real money, because unlike real money, it can be copied. And copying those bits is natural human behaviour. I'm not stealing anything (I SAID IT'S NOT STEALING!!!) because the person off whom I copied these bits isn't losing anything. It's a completely victimless crime.
In fact I would even go so far as to say that the mere fact that so called "bank fraud" is still illegal is IRREFUTABLE proof that the government is corrupt, that it always has been corrupt, and that it always will be corrupt, unless I go on a shooting spree with my AK-47, which I have a constitutional right, nay responsibility to own and use to blow the head off anyone I disagree with.
But first, I think I might stop by a few banks on the way...
Until you stop voting in lawyers into office, you will see no changes. Lawyers are going to first take care of lawyers. In order to see any changes in the future, we have to vote in people who will support the people. So the way to start this is to vote in anybody who is not a lawyer.
If some entity is going to claim property rights to something, and apparently the Government is going along, is this property entered on the tax rolls, and is the municipality collecting taxes on it?
Why the hell not?
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
Up to 2008 no president has been black. They were all white and well off. And none were women either. Beside the right equality (which is sometimes more a theory than something practiced) can you point anyway to any recent issue where women/non white people being able to vote for one democrate white guy and one republican white guy would change ANYTHING ?
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The bad thing is, if you are dealing with counterfeit low quality medications, cosmetics, hygiene products and food, as well as children toys, power tools, safety systems, etc, they DO pose a LOT of danger to public health and safety.
One must decouple intangible stuff like software, music, ideas, business practices, and their ilk from the likes of medicine and machines if one wants any chance to fight against copyright abuse.
That's a complete joke! So your telling me that if I download a movie illegally, I'm a danger to "public health, saftey", but if I were to patent a bunch of specific DNA strands in humans, and force scientests to pay milions of dollars for the rights to use the DNA to cure cancer is what, not a public health risk? WTF?
I read a while back that the patent system's corruption is not just affecting the geeks of America, but now even scientests trying to cure deadly dieseses. It's because of a loophole in the patent system that says that since you pass DNA through a machine to extract it, it's no longer "biological material", so it can be patented. So scientests have to worrry about copyright infringment when trying to cure cancer! MILLIONS OF PEOPLE DIE FROM CANCER! How many people die from Infringment?
copyrights cover intangible works like books and music. the entire government needs to wake up and smell the will of the people.
I'm an American. I don't infringe copyrights. Someone else infringes copyrights. I just consume media.
They're using their grammar skills there.
"Copyright infringement considered harmful"
Intellectual property = information.
It does not matter how much anyone would like it to be a physical property, be it you or me or the RIAA / MPAA. If it can be represented in a digital form, it is information.
The purpose of a computer is to copy and transform information.
The purpose of the Internet is to copy and transform information on a global scale.
Like it or not, the biggest change in civilization the last 20 years have been about moving digital information. Computers does not differ between types of information, they just move (copy) a huge number of ones and zeros from one place to another. The Internet is basically a colossal copyright infringement machine.
I worry a lot about "Intellectual Property". I can understand their worried and justified claims on the content industry, but no matter how you twist and turn this it boils down to "controlling information".
There is no difference between different kinds of information. If intellectual property could be controlled, all information could be controlled. This includes any information any government would declare "illegal".
If anyone could control who copies a Hollywood blockbuster, they could also control who copies other information that makes the government look bad. Like a video of police brutality or any violation of human rights.
Controlling information
I lost my sig.
When I first read the summary, the impression that I got was that the whole idea of copyright infringement is detrimental to the public health, as in the whole process of worrying about whether something you've created infringes in any small way upon the copyright of some other established work is itself a detriment to the public health. While a bit dramatic, this actually seemed more logical to me. The problem of having to pass everything you create through a team of lawyers for the peace of mind that you won't get sued seems itself to be a public health problem. The practice whereby certain ideas which establish themselves in the public mindshare are then locked-down and made off-limits to the rest of us (often for much longer than one human lifetime) to me seems a problem of public health and the free flow of ideas and innovation.
I've watched film commentaries where the filmmakers have discussed getting this or that brand or product cleared for use in the film to tell their story. It could be an autobiography where the subject's favorite piece of music--something he may have listened to and been inspired greatly during their formative years--can't be used because they can't get clearance.
We can't even describe our own life experiences truthfully without calling in the lawyers and paying someone off. Something is just not right about that. I'm not saying IP should be done away with entirely, but to argue in the opposite direction, to say that the infringement of copyrights owned by a small fraction of the public is somehow a larger problem for the health of the public as a whole is pretty disengenuous.
No analogy is exact, but I'll try to explain what I'm getting at. There are two kinds of copyright infringement.
On the one hand, there are warez and counterfeiting. This consists of making and distributing more-or-less exact copies of a substantial portion of a work without authorization. The majority of Slashdot comments that I've read appear to accept that counterfeiting and the majority of the warez trading that happens on topsites and BitTorrent is and should be against the law. But the period of exclusivity that the law recognizes is too long. In the 1990s, governments began extending the term of copyright to the life of the last surviving author plus 70 years. But most copyrighted works make most of their profit or loss in the first 14 years. The order of magnitude difference between the current copyright term and the efficient copyright term only serves to encourage publishers to act like a dog in the manger, taking works out of print so that they don't compete with the publisher's more recent works. Or it encourages the U.S. Department of Justice (or foreign counterparts in other countries with criminal copyright infringement) to act the same way toward use of orphan works. In this case, the breakage is the long term of unavailability of a work in copies or phonorecords at reasonable market prices. It appears to create more work for those involved in the production of new works at the expense of the use of old works by the public.
The other case is transformative use. Some transformative uses, such as parody, the private copying of sound recordings, and composing new songs that happen to share another song's chord progression, are protected by law, but only if the transformative user has enough savings to defend himself at trial. Other transformative uses, such as satire, mash-ups, and composing new songs that happen to share part of another song's melody, are not protected by law. In this case, the breakage is nuisance lawsuits (in the case of a transformative use that is lawful) or the inability of a work to be distributed at all (in the case of a transformative use that happens not to be lawful). It appears to create more work for lawyers and for firms that specialize in copyright search and clearance, at the expense of the author's freedom to transform and the public's enjoyment of the works.
The entertainment industry has always identified that control of the distribution channel was their primary objective. They pander to the masses about supporting starving artists and contributing to the cultural collective, but at the end of the day, it degenerates into control - plain and simple.
... interfered with. See how that works? I'm not saying that it's right to do so, but I am pointing out that there is a law-enforcement-supported method for quelling free speech. And that's the hideous bad thing.
Like it or not, the entertainment industry is part of the political process. Wanna write and sing a protest song? Nope, sorry, that's become a felony under the NO-BITCHIN bill passed recently. That's a tad extreme, but it's illustrative of the badness that can be levied by a small cadre of individuals and companies if they're allowed to control media distribution with such draconian measures. And don't fool yourself, they're playing a long-term incremental game. They're slowly eroding your freedom, and you're the frog in the comfy warm water.
Your indie store owners are suffering as a result of transient conditions. It'll settle out. It's unfortunate that they're taking one in the head, but it's unavoidable as the general population adopts a new social perception about music sharing.
The freedom of the press and the political opposition are the same issue approached from different directions. If you quote an op-ed piece I wrote about a political candidate, and issue a scathing rebuttal, I can have your comments removed from electronic publications by issuing a DMCA Takedown demand. Your political and "free" speech has been
"You do realize that in the USA the President is a powerless git that's unable to legislate?"
You do realize you're wrong? The President is the face of his party, and definitely is not a "powerless git" as you so ineloquently put it.
For example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_%28United_States%29
That particular bit of refutation aside, there is still your obliviousness to the real power the President wields, that of the back door deal.
Your assessment of the President's powers looks very similar to what a child might assume after reading the Constitution. A basic understanding of the written law, with little to no understanding of the actual behaviors.
I worked for the County of San Bernardino (nex to LA county) and I'll be the first to say tha the only thing the Board of Supervisors (the county legislators) care about is re-couping money through alternate revenue streams with the dropping real estate values since the vast majority (if not almost entirely) of county income is in the form of property taxes. In San Bernardino, the goal was to bring in businesses to the underdeveloped I-15/I-10 industrial cooridor and to the high desert because the improved land brings in property tax and sales tax revenue.
LA county doesn't nearly have the same degree of "unimproved" space as other regional counties, so they have a natrual interest in keeping the existing high-revenue landholders happy and doing business in LA county, as well as helping keep entertainment-centered birck and mortar business open because the sales tax revenue and more importantly, the assessed value of the land falls quickly as shops close. From the county's prospective, they're just as screwed by Amazon as TPB when it comes to getting there piece of the pie.
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
At this point, NPR is pretty far to the right as well. Just how far was driven home to me the other day when they were talking about Berry Goldwater, and the comment was made that his views were "pretty consistently liberal by todays standards." There was a round of hearty agreement from the panel and no one seemed to recognize the significance of what they were saying.
If Barry Goldwater looks like a leftist to you, you have passed the rumble strips and are now driving off the shoulder to the right.
--MarkusQ
P.S. And I'd have to agree with some of the posters on adjacent threads: there is no "left" in American politics at present, and apart from a few blogs and a couple of low power AM radio stations, very little "left" left in the media.
I'm not from the US, and this copywrong madness makes me sick. Are we even now?
I now think that the ordinance is valid. On closer reading, prompted by a colleague, this ordinance actually has to do with trademark, not copyright. That is, what it deals with is the sale of falsely marked goods, not copyright violation per se. It doesn't apply to someone offering or downloading a song or movie both because no sale is involved and because they aren't falsely marked. What it applies to is the case in which someone creates their own copies of a movie, labels them like the authorized DVDs, and puts them up for sale. The preemption clause in 17 US 301(a) is specific to copyright infringement and does not apply to counterfeiting/trademark violation.
This is probably aimed at counterfeiters who produce fake disks by the truckload. And I don't have a problem with shutting *them* down.
But MOST businesses (legit or otherwise) rent, they don't own the building they're working out of. If the property in question was so used without its owner's knowledge, this is likely to produce a number of mortgage and tax defaults as owners whose commercial property cannot produce income for the next year find it more cost-effective to simply stop paying for it.
That aside, I'm wondering what impact this might have on private residences (both owner-occupant and rentals) if the tenant is convicted of filesharing. Does their concept go this far? Do proposed or existing laws address this?
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Hollywood stole Edisons Moving picture property . Long ago.
They moved as far away from Edison and his enforcers as possible.
And just in case they needed to escape to a nearby friendly country (Mexico)
They selected the other (East versus West) coast .
LOL on them now.
"But in this country people do have the right to not go to sleep hungry or be harassed."
In which country? Certainly not in the U.S. I consider that a good thing.
For writing to a Republican congressman:
;)
Little boys / teenage boys
For writing to a Democratic congressman
Overpriced hooker / plump ugly woman
Karma is worthless if you don't spend some every now and then
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I have personally called, faxed, emailed and snail mailed my two California Senators (Boxer + Feinstein) and told them to vote against this bill in the Senate.
If everyone here on Slashdot does the same, I would imagine the Slashdot effect would overwhelm our elected officials with our intentions and desires.
Just add {In Space!} to anything.
oops didnt spell check the link its http://www.politicalcompass.org/
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
dusting up the oldest sockpuppet, i see? the other ones not working too well now, running into negative karma land? too bad.
yes, we want to force people who are not voluntarily willing to let other people live as they see fit to leave them the hell alone. (we're talking to all of you bigots out there, whichever type of "-ist" you are)
we want to force people who think war is a bloodsport OUT of the loop when it comes to decisions about war.
we want to force corporate owners and the wealthy to give their fair share to society.. and once again butt out of other people's lives.. especially individuals' lives.
NOTE: this is not necessarily in line with the democratic party's current actions... as the democratic party may as well be termed "republican II, electric boogaloo" at this point.
2nd Note: this does not operate under the assumption that wealthy = corrupt, but there obviously are exceedingly wealthy people who are exceedingly corrupt and have created a system with no accountability for their actions.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
The land has become people? The land is taking drugs, joining gangs, having sex for money and placing wagers?
The word should have been "dens" not "denizens". If there isn't a term for using the wrong word just to get more syllables, then I suggest "creeping syllablism" (or humorously, "creepening syllablizationatingism").
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?