Slashdot Mirror
Biden Promises 'Right Person' As Copyright Czar
Hugh Pickens writes "Vice President Joe Biden lauded Hollywood at a gala dinner in Washington, assailed movie piracy, and promised film executives that the Obama administration would pick 'the right person' as its copyright czar. Biden warned of the harms of piracy at the private event organized by the Motion Picture Association of America in the sumptuous, newly renovated Great Hall of the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C. 'It's pure theft, stolen from the artists and quite frankly from the American people as consequence of loss of jobs and as a consequence of loss of income,' Biden said, according to a White House pool report. Biden addressed President Obama's forthcoming decision about who will be named the intellectual-property enforcement coordinator, better known as the copyright czar. Under a law approved by the US Congress last October, Obama is required to appoint someone to coordinate the administration's IP enforcement efforts and prepare annual reports. Copyright industry lobbyists sent a letter to the president asking him to pick someone sympathetic to their concerns, while groups that would curb copyright law sent their own letter (PDF) urging the opposite approach. We 'will find the right person for intellectual property czar,' Biden said."
Lawrence Lessig
The way things have gone so far with this admin I figure that the only right person in there eyes will be someone like this Dan Glickman, head of the MPAA,
The Navy Motto "IF it ain't broke Fix It" "A day is wasted if you don't learn something new"
An ex, cough, current RIAA attourney without any doubt...
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Let the excuse-making begin.
For us on the other side of the ocean, what is this copyright czar you keep mentioning?
It's kind of sad to see that despite all the progressive politics that Obama and Biden embody, that they're following Hollywood's line to the letter. I'd like to see some specific language from them on exactly what they think about the proper length of copyright terms -- the current terms lasting a century or more are absurd.
Lessig took the wrong approach in arguing Eldred v. Ashcroft before the Supreme Court. While the frequent extensions to copyright obviously violate the spirit of the Constitution, they don't violate the letter, since century-plus durations are still technically "limited." What does violate the letter of the Constitution is that these extensions do not "promote the Progress" of science and arts, but rather retard them. Past a certain length, copyright terms don't create any additional encouragement to create; they just make it easier for huge corporations to monopolize our common culture.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
The loss of income by some Americans due to copyright infringement is exactly made up for by the savings of the Americans who don't pay for the copyrighted works. It's a complete and total wash as far as the domain that can be affected by American legislation and law enforcement. I'm for copyrights of a limited term (say, 20 years) and this still sickens me.
One of the big things that bothers me is that the american entertainment industry is such a tiny part of the economy. IBM is worth much more than any of the entertainment companies -- five times all of Sony or Time-Warner, for example -- but you don't see congress and the president trying to fuck over every citizen in IBM's name. It's a completely corrupt effort, even though copyrights can serve a good purpose.
"It's pure theft..." but when Disney takes the creation of Steven Lisberger, that's ok, because they own that, so it's not really theft. Corporations have "intellectual property" because they have buying power. Apparently the artists they hire have no intelligence, because they sell their creativity rights for the access to the medium.
It is not surprise that this administration would be pro-big media. The question to me would be, to what extent are they willing to compromise common carrier and constitution in that endeavor.
"There is nothing to do it. But to do it." -Floyd Pepper
How so? I didn't realize copyright law enforcement was a particularly partisan issue in the United States. Both parties, and most of the general populace, including (perhaps especially) Slashdot, are rather clueless about copyright law.
My personal suggestion is that they pick no one, abolish the office, and tell Hollywood to go to hell. But, that's not going to happen, so I nominate, let's see....Stephen Kinsella.
SSC
And if you keep torrenting they are going to three strikes you with an Obama SWAT tank and some stimulus bullets and seize your gear. But on the other hand you'll get network neutrality .
Is it possible that we wouldn't be downloading everything there ever was, if we had grown up in a world where copyrights were limited in any meaningful sense?
In before they dig up Jack Valenti's rotted corpse and put him in charge of this shit.
...that we may already be able to see where, in general, the future will lead with regard to copyright enforcement. The music industry has more or less given up on DRM; there were enough places that started selling DRM-free music, and made a mint at it, that the big dogs finally gave up. Why?
Among the population of those who pirate (set P), the subset Q who pirate because it's easy, but would pay if they couldn't pirate, is very small. The big dogs were spending more on creating and implementing DRM schemes than they could ever hope to earn from Q, and they finally figured this out.
The movie industry hasn't quite got this yet, or at least not in the same way; because a piece of music is much smaller and easier to distribute than a piece of video, the RIAA's battle with Internet piracy really began around 1996. The MPAA didn't start having to deal with it to the same degree for five or six years later. Giant corporations are not quick learners, and it'll probably be another two or three years before they really get it (although to some degree they've learned from the RIAA's mistakes).
In practice, there will be a lot of lip service put toward stopping the Evil Pirates, and occasional high-profile incidents such as the Pirate Bay verdict, but in the main, 99% of pirates will never be affected. There's just way too many of them compared to the studios; giant though those corporations may be, they're nothing compared to the tens of thousands of people who are dedicated, for whatever reason, to defeating any conceivable DRM scheme.
There'll still be efforts made against commercial pirates, but as for noncommercial piracy, unless they make a big splash or get noticed for some reason, they're going to be ignored by the studios forever, because it will always cost the studios more to do something about them than they could ever hope to earn from doing so.
Biden and Obama and their successors will, as has been noted, probably sing the same tune forever -- the entertainment industry is a huge political donor. More to the point, the only politicians who get elected are going to be the ones who at least pay lip service to helping Hollywood against the Evil Pirates (tm). But there's really never going to be much they can do about it.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Feeling suckered yet? Obama knows where to get his bread buttered, and Hollyweird is only happy enough to do it for him.
Maybe it's just as simple as Biden wanting more money? "Give me more money and I'll make sure the 'right person' gets approved."
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
Hollywood, in general, tends to support the left more than the right. Consequently, my guess would be that the nominee would be someone who tends to favor Hollywood's interest, so Hollywood campaign contributions to the Democratic Party continue at current or higher levels.
I could be wrong about my guess, though.
The right person for the job will know which battles are winnable, and which battles aren't.
The right person for the job will recognize that intellectual property holders are going to be more effective at combating user vs. corporation-style IP infringements by expanding access. This person will attempt to foment an environment in which it is reasonable for powerful IP holders to aggressively pursue this objective.
The right person for the job will focus enforcement efforts on businesses (e.g., pirated software) rather than living-room pirates, since the former can likely be widely-enforced, whereas the latter can't.
The right person for the job will seek to reform the patent system, and adopt a relatively narrow view of what IP entails.
The right person for the job will see his or her role as more along the lines of facilitating and educating, than as a law enforcement agent, or, worse, a corporate shill.
The right person for the job will be able to come up with witty comebacks to the TPB staff's bizarre antics.
Also, the right person for the job will probably still be widely reviled here. But that's okay, too.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
I'm just hoping something like this will happen in the future.
Biden returning from trip, eases himself down into a chair in the Oval Office.
Obama: Long trip there, Joe? *hands him drink*
Biden: Long trip, long visit, good to be back. Thanks. So, how are things back at the ranch?
Obama: Fine, fine. The girls showed me something fairly remarkable on the internet.
Biden: Kids today, whippersnappers et cetera. What was it, youbook or facespace?
Obama: No, no. Something called bittorrent. Did you know there's all sorts of music online? And you can just download it!
Biden: *looks wary* That's none of that file-sharing, is it?
Obama: No, it's called bittorrent. All the kids are doing it.
Biden: Sure it's not piracy?
Obama: I just ordered our boys to blow the heads off of three pirates off of Somalia. I think I know piracy when I see it.
Biden: Sure it's none of that p2b-er b2a um a2m or whatever it is?
Obama: Nope. Bittorrent.
Biden: Hmph. *takes a closer look* Hey, this is neat. Wonder why the Hollywood guys haven't built something like this.
Meanwhile, in the White House IT office
Tech 1: Hey, looks like someone's using bittorrent.
Tech 2: Damn, I thought we blocked the port. Better fix it now before anyone notices.
Tech 1: Better not. Did you see the IP on that one?
Tech 2: Shit, you're right. I'm not going to be the one to tell the POTUS he can't play. Remember how pissed Cheney got after he spent all that time assuring everyone those emails were safely lost and whoops, we found the backups?
Tech 1: *shudders* Tell me about it. I haven't seen anyone that mad since I "accidentally" deleted Rove's furry scat collection.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
We're already becoming more and more like the old USSR every day. We don't need to be calling our non-elected leaders "czars."
What is this, Russia?
Is being elected by the people to bring change, and instead offering more of the same old hollywood criminals exactly what they want.
What a great idea! Much better than anything I could have come up with. Problem solved.
You're right. We should stop calling them czars, comrade.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
I will remind you that it was a Democrat that signed the DMCA into law.
Copyright is fine as long as it is not abused. The problem is that copyright holder are abusing the system and are doing anything in their power to prevent copyrighted work reach the public domain. If getting hold of copyrighted was easier legally, and affordably, then there would be less pirates, but there will always be pirates. One example I have of the difficulty of easily getting copyright affordably is the Farscape seasons. Whatever your opinion is of this series, you find yourself either not able to find season 1 because of distribution rights mess, or paying out of your nose for the seasons you can get hold of.
I do buy media, though I just wait until it is in the price range of us mere mortals.
So in many ways copyright is fine, but not the way it is now. As it is, it is just a license for big media to screw everyone with their extortionate practices. 70 year copyrights? So which creating artist is still alive to benefit from this?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I like how they equate big business = "American People", while the people who are the REAL American people are considered criminals. Fuck the bribed government!
So is the administration stealing from toilet paper companies when they use the constitution to wipe their asses?
Vice President Joe Biden lauded Hollywood at a gala dinner in Washington, assailed movie piracy, and promised film executives that the Obama administration would pick "the right person" as its copyright czar.
In response, we promise to implement "the right protocol" to circumvent whatever the czar tries to do.
I will remind you that it was a Republican congress that wrote and voted for the DMCA bill.
And I will remind you that the DMCA was cosponsored in both houses by a Republican and very few of them voted against it.
In Soviet America...
Wait.
I think I'll just stop right here.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Copyright was a small subject for the Bush administration, they were into energy and military spending.
The congress on the other hand is littered with Democrats who have been propped up with entertainment dollars.
Hollywood, in general, tends to support the left more than the right.
It does neither. "Hollywood", for lack of a better term, is a business. Pretty much everything they do is predicated on making money, like any other business.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
...sit back, relax, and see who gets the post.
We, as a consumer group, do have the power to stop RIAA and MPAA cold. How? Stop listening to music on the radio, don't buy any new CDs (used is fine), turn off your TV (and cable/sat/uverse), and don't go to the movies. It will take only about six months to completely destroy RIAA and MPAA if as few as 20% of the people do this.
The real problem as I see it is that very few of you want to be rid of the RIAA and MPAA, you just don't like how they do business. That's fine, I don't like how they do business myself. That's why I don't have cable or sat, I don't listen to music on the radio, I don't go to movies, I don't buy movies or CDs....
Put up or shut up folks. It's fine to complain, but do something about it, why don't you? The copyright cartels are paying the politicians far more than we do, and they're doing it with money we pay them. Quit paying them money to abridge your rights and desires.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Richard Stallman! Seriously, he'd be the best man for the job.
Why?
Because most people don't mind being told what to do. (Republican democracy has only taken up 2% of the 10,000 years since humans invented agriculture, and still most of the people in the world are ruled by unelected or sham-elected governments. Heck, even the US is sliding into totalitarianism.)
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
It will be an MPAA lawyer. Let's move on now? I hear Sweden is opening its borders to U.S. "defectors."
Please, let me inflame: Are you so left that the rest of us look like center?
Hollywood is a business. It is also very liberal in its views.
I will remind you that it was a Democrat that signed the DMCA into law.
Yep. Under a Republican House and Senate.
And it was Introduced by:
Howard Coble, N.C.-R
Henry Hyde, Illinois-R
John Conyers, Michigan-D
Barney Frank, Mass.-D
Also sponsored by:
Sonny Bono, Cali-R
Bill McCollum, Fl-R
Howard Berman, Cali-D
Mary Bono, Cali-R
Bill Paxon, NY-R
Chip Pickering, Miss-R
The bill passed:
The House 297-112, Republicans: 205 Yes, 16 No, Democrats 92 Yes, 95 No
The Senate 99-0, Republicans 54 Yes, Democrats 45 Yes
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/105/house/2/votes/69/
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/105/senate/2/votes/137/
So yeah, looks like Hollywood spread the donations around to both parties. At least more than half of the House Democrats voted no.
They used Fuhrer at first but it proved unpopular
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Does anyone else find it disturbing we now have people in the US gov't we refer to as "czars"? WTF.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
Obviously, nothing should enter the public domain until it is dug from the ground by an archaeologist.
Just yesterday I was thinking that we were in better position because of neo-cons being gone, and with Obama in charge. If Obama is turning this copyright crap over to biden, we may be in for a LOT of fighting. Kind of sux.
I'm not entirely sure that Obama's push on IP is driven entirely by Hollywood. Maybe in part it's solidarity with Biden and maybe not, but I've always felt Barack to be the sort to push his own agenda over anyone else's. His big drive is to fix the economy and fix health, which are personal. And a strong IP is the only way an economy that's moved from agrarian to industrial to informational can survive. That is, if you don't have resources, you don't have manufacturing, what are you as a country going to be able to peddle?? I think he sees that. RIAA is a very bad source to pull people from, though. I don't care how good they are, they'll never be able to wash the algae off.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
all we have are a bunch of old people who don't understand the implications of a new technology
copyright is nothing more than damage to be routed around, and that's what the internet does
let them pass any law, appoint any stooge they want. why does anyone here care?
the whole of intellectual property is simply defunct and unenforceable
now, if they actually could enforce the laws they pass, then this would be an issue
but they can't. they simply can't. they can bankrupt the occasional grandmother or soccer mom, but to what end?
the technology routes around whatever they do
game over
copyright has died. it does matter what anyone thinks, it matters what the technology allows. and the technology allows unfilterable file trading. no one can stop that. no law on earth, that does also destroy the technology as well, which no one wants to do
all that is happening is a bunch of people live in denial about the truth of a new technological reality
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Yeah, so it turns out that absent any major concern on the part of the electorate, politicians listen to the people who talk to them the loudest - folks with money to lobby them. And while this site is chock full of people who like to write righteous screeds about the injustices of copyright law, most people in the US don't give a shit about copyright law.
Let me repeat that: most people in the US don't give a shit about copyright law.
They don't know, don't pay attention, haven't had it be a problem for them, and don't care. Go and ask your parents, or your non-tech savvy siblings, or whomever else. Most, if not all of them, won't know or care. And the reason for that is because nearly all the people that do care spend their time writing righteous screeds about it on Slashdot.
If you want to make a difference, sure - complain about it, but not here. Complain about it to your congresscritters; but not just them - you've got to make other people give a shit, and that means talking to someone who's not here to listen to the preaching at choir practice.
If normal people start giving a shit, politicians will change their tune, because that's how politics works. So get the fuck off Slashdot and go talk to regular people who don't know and don't care, and inform them and get them to give a shit. It does matter, and you can convince people that it matters. But you have to actually do some work.
It's a fair bet when Biden cries for the artists, this isn't the sort of artist he cries for. More examples of artists (real artists, not corporations posing as artists) being ripped off here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
The Investment Theory of Politics says the best predictor of government policy is who the donors are. The RIAA donated both to the Dems and the Republicans. Whoever wins, we lose. They're getting the laws they paid for. Not anyone else you can vote for. Obama's campaign made a big deal about how he was funded by small donors, but 2/3rds of his income was from corporate interests.
Here's another example, the one of congress taking rights away from the public and giving them to corporations. In compensation for this you get NOTHING. YOU GET NOTHING! GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR!:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
Biden makes me sick.
DMCA was authored, introduced, had almost UNANIMOUS support from the pubs, with split support from the house dems. But the one that it is attributed to is Clinton. I love the rewrites of history that goes on ALL THE TIME.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Nice coming from Biden, who flunked a course in law school for turning in a stolen paper.
All my usual politics aside, it seems to me that both parties are deep in the pocket of the **AA's.
I think the USA should be careful when it comes to copyright. Not necessarily the copyright itself, but what official representatives say and do about it.
The reason is that copyright infringement is a civil matter in court. This, combined with the fact that all parties are supposed to pay their own lawyer expenses and the low damages given for unregistered work means that residents of the USA can very easily infringe on the copyright of foreigners and then hide behind the law.
What's that, you don't believe me? OK, then read this discussion: http://photo.net/business-photography-forum/00T5B5 . I am the starter of the discussion, and have had one of my photographs published by Jay Klusky and Duke University (or an employee/student of that university), both inside the USA. I live outside USA, and as far as I can tell the effects of the US legal system is that by standing up to defend my copyright I will loose money. Why bother, then?
I predict that I will be laughing at all the folks who voted for this administration. All in hoping for a change of there leadership being towed by big business.
Ha! Ha! ...Sorry, I can't help myself...
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
"Vice President Joe Biden lauded Hollywood at a gala dinner in Washington, assailed movie piracy, and promised film executives that the Obama administration would pick "the right person" as its copyright czar."
----- The right person for *who*? THAT is the real question people should be asking.
The 'right person' for the people, or the RIAA and MPAA?
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
innocent question... I'm assuming you are talking about the triple A? getting people to the right place when they're stuck in a bad situation, right?... I didnt know it covered the economy? :p
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that
since they are real world objects. you can steal an object
as for purchasing his digital content, this is called the tip jar. nothing wrong with that. but there's no coercion involved. you do it because you want, to, not because you are forced to. totally different dynamic
as for the rest of what you say, you are completely wrong. the way it works economically now is a band puts there stuff out there, for free. and they make money when people show up at their concerts and pay a covercharge/ entrace fee/ ticket to get in. and they do advertising. and they do other specialty ancillary stream for revenue
but anything on the web, anything digital, is nothing more than the equivalent of a sales flier. theres no way to monetize that, so its just free advertising
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Obama has more Czars than the Romanov Dynasty.
if some great silver age content is smouldering in some warehouse because assholes don't understand that they would get more ancillary revenue from that material if people could actually fucking use it, then liberate it
"Countries are considering laws to remove your internet privileges for file sharing."
you do understand this is impossible and ridiculous right? the technology can just obfuscate the activity and masquerade it as allowed activity. as long as it is legal in some other country, game over. on the internet, legal somewhere is legal everywhere
"People are having to waste countless time and resources fighting them and working around the laws."
you always have to pay some sort of tax for assholes in your life who don't get it. nothing changes this reality
"And we don't even know what great technologies the law has stopped. The next YouTube? The next Google?"
we have yahoo and google. if the technologyi sreally useful to someone, do you really think some stupid law written by fools who don't understand the technology will stop it? your supposition is logically impossible. no one, especially clueless idiots, make laws against things they don't understand, nevermid no one else. the best the idiots can do is actually shut down the internet. and no one will allow that. with the internet, its all or nothing. and any attempts to gum up the works is just routed around, masked, obfuscated, bounced, whatever
"Just because they can't win doesn't mean we don't lose."
this is just the state of the world. no one has ever lived, or who has ever lived, who is not limited in some way by the fools on their environment. by the same token, each of us is enabled by other people in our enviroment as well. the other people in your life represent sources of enabling you, and sources of stroppping you. you just have to learn how to navigate your world
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
There is plenty of evidence that the DMCA enjoyed bi-partisan support. Anyone claiming its all the fault of Democrats or all the fault of Republicans is just a partisan party hack.
The U.S. government is basically a one-party system anymore.
I.P. is propaganda plain and simple.
You give them a huge advantage just by starting from the perspective that it is property. Characterizing the intangible as tangible.
The system was created more reasonably for the purposes of promoting the betterment of society; it has only drifted further from that with time... In addition, much of the "products" have become largely vapid if not harming society (Monsanto or large NiMH batteries for example.)
Music existed before copyright law.
Open Source exists without profit.
Books are better on paper for most people.
Films existed before VHS and BETA.
Shakespeare existed before Film and made a living.
Inventors existed before patents; universities and the military discovered MOST our technology from outside the "I.P." mentality.
Corporatism means government protecting business from progress and its customers; at its own request. Did the trains stop cars? What about the ICEMAN? What about the Whip makers? They have been reduced to supplying niche markets... Record Producers are dated ("Record" in the title should be a give away.)
Beside all that, are our lives actually all that greater from all these things they claim wouldn't have existed without I.P? I love some music, but I could have lived without it; possibly better.
Beyond all of this, the world is overpopulated and we must create over-consumption in order to provide employment for so many people. So we engineer a society who's primary function is consumption (demand side, not supply.) I've heard to maintain an EU quality lifestyle the world can only handle 2 billion people.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
So, what I'm gathering from this is that most, if not all, politicians are corrupt and there to make another buck? Sick joke if you ask me. They're already living in the top .1% of American income off our tax dollars, then they screw the producers to make some more money. Why haven't we revolted yet?
Slashdotters in general may not know an awful lot about the particulars of copyright law.
However, they do understand why it was written in the first place and why it now needs to change.
She made the willows dance
What is this, Russia?
Not yet.
Though if they insisted on using a Russian word, they might have as well used the more descriptive (and less alien sounding to English ears) and traditionally distinguishing part of the official title, which is "autocrat". Russian Czars (and monarchists) have always highlighted that part as distinctive from all other European monarchies, as an indicator of the intentional unlimited absolutism of Russian monarchy (Ivan the Terrible liked to say that "all autocrat's subject are equal before him as slaves"). The political system was correspondingly called "autocracy", rather than just "monarchy".
How can these entertainment industry scum bags get away with conspiring against free software (see DVD) and still spew BS about "protecting the authors"? Sorry, but if I want to watch a DVD I paid for on my Linux box without letting hollywood spy on me, it should not be a violation of your imaginary property.
How did having Czars become in vogue? It was a dirty word 20 years ago.
If a "Czar" stepped foot into Washington DC, Rambo would have shot 'em while Chuck kicked 'em in the back.
But back to the point... Wow, 2 articles in a row about big bad piracy (previous was the poor PSP). A few days after TPB gang gets $1mil + 1yr in jail.
At least the next story is about a GIANT bot net, not that that is "good". It's just more interesting than this tired rag.
The distributors screw'd the pooch when they squashed Napster. If they would have monetized our old-friend, they would have gotten bonuses bigger than ___________.
Give me a break, produce/sell more at a lower price and make it up in volume.
It's lemonade stand economics.
I would go to more than ~1 movie/year if it didn't cost 15 - 20 bucks per person. I feel soo bad for families.
I find this concept from the article ironic,
"It's pure theft, stolen from the artists and quite frankly from the American people...."
The distributor is the one that really looses with most piracy (software excluded). Artists are just slaves to the whole system as we are.
It is pathetic how much favor is being given to the system(s) that make profit. I think this trend has really accelerated in the past 20 - 30 years. Where's Rambo and Chuck when you need them.
I thought fascism would smell different.
The truly progressive voters in the Democratic party voted for Dennis Kucinich or Nader, not Obama
The problem with guys like these is while I agree with them on one or two of the issues that they split from the major parties on, on the rest they all sound like f'ing loonies to me. Where am I supposed to go to find someone who represents me? Do I have to run for office myself?
I voted for Obama because while he might not actually change the way government does business, he sounded like the most reasonable guy and the one able to get things done on the issues I care the most about (healthcare, for example).
http://gizmodo.com/5197156/obamas-ipod-gift-to-queen-elizabeth-ii-is-tainted
http://www.geek.com/articles/apple/president-obama-gives-queen-ipod-full-of-mp3s-but-will-the-riaa-sue-2009043/
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the occasional grandmonthers
and I did not speak out because I was not an occasional grandmonther
Then they came for the soccer moms
and I did not speak out because I was not a soccer mom.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
I believe the rights to use the term Fuhrer are currently owned by Fox corp, but it's for internal use only.
What's with the political party fanboyism. It's the two party system, people! When are you going to learn that they are both just out to fuck you.
Because otherwise the artists would have been paid their full share of the profits by the big-hearted film companies.
They used Fuhrer at first but it proved unpopular
I am confused ... does this counts as Godwin's, or not?
If you think Obama does anything more than lean slightly to the left (like his left leg is 1/2 inch shorter) then you're off-centered yourself mate.
The enforcement is patchy.
The reason for aggressive approaches to P2P (not for commercial gain) is that you are POTENTIALLY losing a sale of the work to the public for each copy seeded on P2P.
But how many works under copyright are no longer in print?
EVERY SINGLE ONE of them could POTENTIALLY be sold to some people interested in it. So why isn't this persued as P2P is? Because the companies owning the copyright (or distribution right) have more money than any single human being.
But they SHOULD be fined 210,000x the sale price of each and every item they own copyright on that they are not this instant retaining and advertising (that's what their cut is for, isn't it? to advertise?) a work under copyright that they own the rights to distribute.
...as a consequence of loss of income
So, if I buy CDs this month instead of paying rent, I've put more money into circulation?
No, I'm pretty sure I'm not buying $600 worth of CDs; if I pay rent this month, I'm pretty sure I'm not buying any. In my case, buying CDs would be stealing from the American people as a consequence of loss of income.
Nice try, Biden; just let Obama do the talking from now on, ok? He might have been able to get that by me.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Isn't there something illegal about using one's public office to favor special interest groups in exchange for future favors, monetary or otherwise?
We are currently in the early years of what will later be recognized as the pivotal fight of the entire Information Age, and not 3 months into his administration Obama has completely sold us out. 5 lawyers from a single industry do not get appointed to the Department of Justice by chance, no matter what their qualifications. In a sane world, there would be an uproar over such obvious improprieties. But the corporate media knows when its obsequience is being bought and has seen to it that word of this crime gets zero airtime whatsoever. Any delusional netroots who still think Obama is on their side are in for more brain-exploding cognitive dissonance when he chooses yet another copyright maximalist for "Copyright Czar."
Take solace in the fact that while we may have been sold down the river and the likely duration of the fight significantly extended, we will win eventually. The overwhelming majority of youth have no respect for copyright as currently practiced and this shows no sign of changing. No matter what technical or legal measures they take, the MAFIAA have already lost the social fight and their ultimate demise is gauranteed.
Since the Wikipedia article is devoid of any reference to the founders of the US, I'd be curious to know on what you base your thesis. Personally, it seems to me that the founders of the US wanted the government to be weaker than the power of the masses, because of their previous experience under British rule (making them distrust government in general).
Things have been going downhill (i.e., the US government has been getting progressively stronger) ever since the founding of the US.
Even though it would have been more appropriate. The German "Führer" literally means "leader" or "guide". It has a more friendly and pleasant ring than "emperor", doesn't it?
Shame it has been tarnished. But so have other terms. Wouldn't "concentration camp" sound more relaxing than "think tank"? :)
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Let's just throw $200 to $700 billion at it and see if that fixes it.
Kernel Krunch - Part of a Complete OS
including economic disaster, a war on two fronts, and a bankrupt automotive sector the copyright czar is on the agenda now?!!?
am i the only one shocked to wonder when the fuck we got one of these!? im sure the RIAA and MPAA know a few good boys who should get this cookie.
Good people go to bed earlier.
it is one thing to steal music to entertain yourself (and we can argue all day about whether file sharing is copyright infringement or fair use) but it is a _completely_ different story to steal something and then try to resell/market it as your own. At least if you aren't paying for use of some creative work, you are at least appreciating it for its greatness. Trying to pass off someone else' IP as your own obfuscates the true brilliance of the creator, making it more difficult for someone else to recognize and purchase their work. Biden has absolutely no moral authority to talk about the theft of IP. http://www.slate.com/id/2198597/
This is almost as annoying as hearing Al Gore talk about taking the initiative in "creating the Internet" I'd be amazed if Al Gore knew enough about the Internet to explain the difference between TCP and UDP.
Serial IP thieves should should never lecture the masses on the dangers of Filesharing.
So the Kremlin is to appoint another Czar... Does this mean my karma is still bad? I called it. I didn't want to say "I told you so." ;)
"Be wary of the man who urges an action in which he himself incurs no risk."
~Joaquin Setanti
It's the big publishers who are stealing from the American people. The books, movies, music my grandmother experienced as a child is STILL locked away under copyright. The song I recently made an MP3 of from an original record recording, about the great depression, is still under copyright.
Our very history has been stolen from us by big publishing. They've lobbied the public domain out of existence. As long as the laws are as unjust as they are, the big publishing industry is my enemy, for stealing 50-100 years of my culture for profit.
It's been a long time.
I had no expectation that either party would act to lessen the power of copyright. I rather expect, if the question comes up at all, they are rationalizing that strong copyright encourages more creativity by allowing people to live on enjoy the fruits of their labor. The fact that the "stronger copyright" stance enjoys such wide support is probably a reflection of this. Free access to and use of information appeals primarily to "intellectuals" and "academics" not acting directly in the commercial markets (although even academia seems to be getting into the IP business these days) and neither of those groups under most reasonable definitions is a major voting block or large percentage of the population.
It might be argued that open source movements are a backlash against over-application or poor definition of copyright, but despite the movement's successes it still remains a niche in terms of overall impact and support. There are even people who consider the very existence of the movement a Bad Thing, and they get to vote too.
It's not a rosy picture, and probably won't be for a loooong time. However, there is one ray of hope that someone up there has a clue - look at http://www.whitehouse.gov/copyright/ The presence of a Creative Commons license for whitehouse.gov content that has had copyright assigned to the government by 3rd parties must be taken as a hopeful sign.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
The new boss is the same as the old boss.
Sartre was right - we can remove a concept like God from law/morality and we'll come to the same moral conclusions. Similarly, a new president can come to power, but the same power brokers still call the shots. Biden promising the 'right person' means it's going to be someone who believes in it hook-line-and-sinker, and won't be critical of any portion, but just continue to extend the terms of copyright, and attempt to criminalize it even further.
Inevitably this just works into the hands of the pirates over the long term - draconian methods of monitoring internet traffic, and the enforcement of these laws will end up creating a layer of complete anonymity on the Internet.
Oh yeah - I think modern politicians also realize the following concept though:
You do not fuck with the people who control the ideas that are shown in mainstream media.
Hollywood is a business. It is also very liberal in its views.
Your brain asplodes. Or can't you read?
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
plenty of big budget movies to come. because movie houses aren't dying. the tv was supposed to kill them. the vcr was supposed to kill them. the dvd was supposed to kill them. the internet was supposed to kill them. all the time, people kept packing movie houses. mainly because watching vin diesel on a 17 inch monitor in your basement just isn't the same thing
as for games: WoW could charge nothing for its client and still rake in big bucks. it controls the access to an online arena. there's only one arena. but yes, games where you play by yourself are free now
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
the p2p client can be built so no one can catch you. and say they DO catch you. ok, they caught you, not the other 10 billion POOR teenagers hungry for media and understanding the tech better than any ip lawyer (ie, watch what the next client can do), and not really caring that much if they get caught (since teenagers have acted since time immemorial)
its an arms race, and those defending can only lose
furthermore, do you really thinking harsh punishments for sharing files wil hold up to moral scrutiny from other sectors of society (please leave your dystopian cynicism at the door, and ask yourself this question honestly: no, they won't tolerate harsh punishment for filesharing, since the moral bankruptcy of the whole charade is wearing thin)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Umm, we have a one party system in the US. It just has two subsidiaries to promote the illusion of competition.
whats your point?
that my attitude is responsible for what riaa assholes do?
so we should submit to the spanish inquisition because they are brutal, nevermind their entire rationale is bullshit?
nah, its all my fault jews and muslims were tortured to death. why? because i say their rationale is bullshit and we should ignore their tactics. no, we should submit to their wishes and demands, simply because they are cruel
pffffffft
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
That WAS NOT flamebait. "Flambait" is not synonymous with "My messianic hero turned out to just be a regular politician."
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The entertainment industry contributed over $15 million to politicians last year, 85% of it to Democrats (see opensecrets.org). So it's easy to see who the "Right Person" will be.
Let's see if you're right.
According to OpenSecrets.org, Obama got $8,599,038 from the "TV/movies/music" industry.
Clinton for $3,320,048 from the same source.
McCain got %1,105,150 from them.
So, "Hollywood" gave the two major Democrat contenders over ten times as much as they gave the major Republican contender. And even the number two Dem got three times as much as the number one Rep (and more than ALL Republican candidates combined), much less the number one candidate (who, incidently, got almost twice as much as all other candidates (Republican and Democrat) combined.
Yes, if you include ALL of the candidates, Hollywood only gave the Dems about six times as much as they gave Reps. But even a six to one ratio suggests some slight bias in favour of one side or the other, don't you think?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I will remind you that 99 Senators voted in favour of the DMCA. One didn't vote. So it was unanimous in the Senate. With the exception of the one Republican who didn't vote, for whatever reason.
The Commerce Committee in the House also approved this unanimously (both the Republicans and Democrats on the committee). It was passed by voice vote in the House, so no vote tally was made there, and it's not clear just how bipartisan it was.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
"intellectual property czar"
The term Czar doesn't sound very democratic at all; I wish the White House would stop calling its bureaucrats by such authoritative and totalitarian names...
Also, the big beef here is that the term "intellectual property" is in itself an oxymoron. You cannot own or hoard thoughts, intellect, or ideas. Once they are expressed in written or verbal form they are the property of the collective, not the individual.
If you want to play fair, sew Einstein's brain back together from all those slivers it's in now and put it back into his head. I'm sure if we can sue for millions over "intellectual property" such as one song that can be legally purchased for $.99, then we should be able to overthrow our government for stealing someone's freaking BRAIN. Nobody should own someone else's brain, not even a 1nm-thick slice of it.
What part of your solution would stop everyone from filesharing everything, and hence getting everything for free? 5% of $0 is $0.
I do think there are far better solutions than our current copyright. However, I don't see how what you propose would generate any income at all to creators, no matter how popular their material was. Or at least how it would generate any more income than a total lack of copyright law plus online tip jars.
Totally agreed.. I hate the term Czar. My family escaped imperial Russia because living under the Czar's rule sucked. They conscripted people into the army for 20 year terms.
the history of file sharing clients is more obfuscation. what would happen if more ants were stepped on is the ants would use a better client. where would it come from? from those same legions of poor but technologically astute teenagers
its cat and mouse, but every time the cat catches the mouse, the mouse comes back with thicker armor, until the mouse goes about its way completely unaffected by the cat
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
How so? I didn't realize copyright law enforcement was a particularly partisan issue in the United States
Democrats have a tendency to take the public good more into account than commercial rights. Therefore, a "copyright czar" appointed by a Democrat is more likely to balance public good and commercial interests better than a Republican.
Hollywood, in general, tends to support the left more than the right
Hollywood is socially liberal, but not when it comes to big business.
Consequently, my guess would be that the nominee would be someone who tends to favor Hollywood's interest
Democrats tend to take the public interest and public good into account more than Republicans. Hence, in picking a copyright czar, they are more likely to pick one that maintains shorter copyright terms and more public domain and fair use rights.
This is a troll how?
"When people can't come up with REAL solutions, they just create a law..." "Whoa is me, I'm the poor company. There are so many wealthy people stealing my stuff and keeping their money in their pocket. wah!" The majority of people sharing files can't afford to buy things willy nilly, use them once and set them aside.
you're bound to crush a few warriors in the process
i really don't think that the dismantling of the old school corporate distribution networks will be a painless process. a dying dinosaur still has a powerful kick
but if you can think up some way to appease the suffering, then please, chime in. a victim's legal defense fund perhaps?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
...does not equate to support for piracy. The point of the Creative Commons license is to allow individuals who want to share their works freely do so while -- and this is important -- retaining rights to them. The Creative Commons license can't be applied to, say, someone else's movie you downloaded with Frostwire.
It is quite possible to support Creative Commons without approving of piracy.
I still equate pirating software with theft. I still think that anyone who torrents a commercial game or song or whatnot is not acting morally, no matter what their justification are (overpricing, DRM, EULA, etc). If you think something is not worth the money it costs or the hoops it makes you jump through, don't get it! There are plenty of freeware/opensource/indy alternatives.
That being said, the draconian actions taken by **AA with full government backing simply disgust me. When a backwards country cuts the hands off thieves, you start rooting for the thieves. I find myself in the same predicament here.
"...sit back, relax, and see who gets the post."
And it won't matter anyway. How long have we had a drug czar? Does anybody remember them? Have they ever accomplished anything?
It's like establishing a commission. But less useful. :)
Actually, I know this, but most people have a hard time swallowing that idea. My intention is to promote a mentality that 3rd parties are a better option.
Piracy is ship to ship armed robbery. Calling copyright infringement piracy makes light of what is happening off the Horn of Africa. Pirates kill, kidnap and steal things (REAL THINGS). It also demonizes making more of a commodity that is already infinite in supply. When we use "their" word, they win. Don't play their game, don't do their work for them.
Oh, and Lessig 4tW.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
But Biden is not rich. Despite being in the Senate for a couple generations, he's "dead last" Senate in terms of income. So yes, you can complain that he's favoring draconian copyright laws to the detriment of the public, but you can't accuse him of corruption just because he's staked a position you disagree with.
Not anyone else you can vote for. Obama's campaign made a big deal about how he was funded by small donors, but 2/3rds of his income was from corporate interests.
Only if you follow the Republican sophistry that donations from employees of Freddie Mac == donations from Freddie Mac.
According to OpenSecrets.org, Obama got $8,599,038 from the "TV/movies/music" industry.
Only if you follow the Republican fallacy that donations from employees of a company count as donations from that company.
Yes, if you include ALL of the candidates, Hollywood only gave the Dems about six times as much as they gave Reps. But even a six to one ratio suggests some slight bias in favour of one side or the other, don't you think?
Or you could look at the metric that actually matters: how politicians vote. And Republicans support copyright extensions every bit as much as Democrats do - remember the Sonny Bono (R-CA) copyright extension act?
I wonder if Hollywood has considered what the end state will be if everything they do to fight movie piracy is successful. No more rips from DVD or bluray, no more cameras in theaters or projection booths, no way to see the movie other than a way they approve. Will the erstwhile pirates be flooding theaters to see the movies they used to watch free? There's no way to know, but I tend to think not. Nothing I've heard from MPAA and friends presents a better model that allows pirates to have movies in the same way they do now, but with payment going to wherever it goes when you go to the theater. Surely that's what MPAA wants? A way to make money off the people who aren't paying them now? Surely they're not interested in simply stopping people from having it free, with no financial benefit for themselves. Without that, I think all their effort is for nothing.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."