Slashdot Mirror
Backlash Builds Against US Copyright Blacklist
An anonymous reader writes "The release last week of the US copyright blacklist is beginning to generate a backlash in countries around the world. Reports from Canada, Europe, and Asia all note that the US claims are very suspect and that the report is little more than an attempt to bully dozens of countries into following the US DMCA model."
I'm waiting for the first ground war based solely on copyright.
You mean like Operation Fastlink and other raids on the warez scene?
You mean the 6th century Battle of Cul Dreimhne in Ireland, where the anti-copyright forces of St. Columcille won and 11000 men died?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columba#Early_life_in_Ireland
Finally an article on Slashdot where a librarian can weigh in with professional knowledge. I don't think enough people realize the mini-war going on in the publishing industry and how those vulture are trying to bleed everyone dry. I am a college librarian at a major university in Manhattan. Today I had to attend a meeting about copyright compliance. It seems that publishers are no longer satisfied with overcharging for every textbook and then overcharging again when a "new" edition (almost identical version except for a new graph or intro) comes out the very next year. Now they would like us to purchase a new copyright compliance software that will allow them to monitor (through the middlemen in the software company) how many times we upload any part of any published material and how many times the students access each pdf or document, and then charge us for every use even thought we have already purchased the book and been using that same material for years. Its nuts. Fair use and common long standing practices by many academic libraries used to mean to us that we could put up 10% of any published document and not have to worry. And i know the diligent followers of Slashdot are not surprised but this type of thuggish shake down. But its almost criminal the nerve these jackals have to try to penny pinch and financially gouge the very universities that are their life blood in this struggling market. Very rarely does a librarian threaten to burn books, but it would be a better use of em that paying those publishing bastards another cent.
Test me and I will chronicle your pain - The Archivist (Diablo 3)
we managed to commit some of the most terrible crimes against humanity via the atomic bombs
Which is nothing compared to the war crimes the Japanese themselves managed to commit. The Japanese engaged in mass killings of civilians, numbering between 3-10 million during the war. In addition, the Japanese conducted experiments not unlike those performed by Mendle under Unit 731, which was accused of both vivisection and cannibalism. They also used banned toxic gasses on the Chinese, tortured and executed prisoners, cannibalized allied prisoners, employed sex slaves and serial rape, and ran forced labor camps which killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.
The atomic weapons used on Japan saved millions and millions of lives, and prevented even greater Japanese atrocities. Indeed, we still have purple hearts left over today from the supply ordered before the invasion of Japan, as the estimated casualties approached 1 million Americans, and nearly all the Japanese.
You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
He's the one who has appointed all the RIAA goons to high office. Even if he may not know exactly what is going on, he would have to be a fucking moron to not have a clue as to what might happen when he did that.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
You want the IMF website.
Or take a look at these 2 articles. We're all stuffed. - and the 2nd uses 2007 figures!
Imagine what happens if #1 in the 1st link defaults on its debts.
>>>Yes, because he has an innate knowledge of every single thing the government is doing
Nope he doesn't, but he knew that he appointed 3 of RIAA's top lawyers to the executive branch. And now we're seeing the consequences of that, and yes Obama is responsible.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Even if the artist was still benefiting, 70+ years is absurd. The whole reason copyright and patents were originally conceived was to encourage new works and promote innovation.
Now, thanks to companies like Disney (the absolute worst when it comes to this issue) lobbying to protect their archives, we have the exact opposite happening... copyright and patents are now stifling innovation and preventing new works and inventions.
I'm all for being rewarded for your intellectual creations, but if you wrote one song 30 years ago, is it in the best interest of society for the government to continue to protect that for you? No. The interest of society is better served if you are encouraged to create new works and let others build upon your foundation. That was the whole idea.
It's all been horribly perverted, and is only going to get worse because ultimately, the people that benefit have more money and are more highly motivated than the general public.
I'd say the ideal target should be in the neighborhood of 10-20 years (tops) and then either create something new or find a different job.
China has a system of blatantly stealing known technology too (see the Redberry, and Chery motors). They have no rules regarding foreign products, and in fact are encouraged to rip off what happens overseas by the govt. So I don't think that using China as an example of "innovation" is appropriate.
So this is different from Germany or the U.S. in the 19th century, or Japan in the 1950ies, or Taiwan in the 1980ies exactly how?
Every country that has managed to close up to the technology leaders of its time has used the same tactics.
Its easy to look back in hindsight and say how it is, but back then things were different. The fire bombing raids on Japan already killed hundreds of thousands, and General Groves opposed the nuke because he felt that "the effect would not be sufficiently distinct from our regular air force [bombing] program."
Estimates of damage were approximated at 1/10 to 1/2 of the actual damage, not counting subsequent radiation damage.
I suppose if they knew the actual damage that could have been caused, they could have dropped the bomb on somewhere unpopulated after warning the Japanese that they'd use it on their cities if they didn't surrender. The Japanese already were wanting an end to the war as seen by the resignation of Prime Minister Koiso and his cabinet. If the US hadn't demanded unconditional surrender, the war may well have ended earlier and without the use of nukes at all.
Estimates of casualties due to the bombs were 200,000 people. During the fighting, that's about 2 months worth of lives lost. However, the firebombing of Tokyo cost roughly 100,000 lives, so the nuke was effectively more a psychological weapon than one used to kill (otherwise the conventional bombing raids would have had the same effect)
Ooops. He's appointing them faster than I can keep up. Apparently there are now 5 RIAA lackeys....er, lawyers on Obama's executive branch. Plus a new copyright czar! Yay.
The content industry, including the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America, are applauding President Barack Obama's appointments of at least five RIAA lawyers to the Justice Department. They urged him to continue the trend.
"The hallmarks of your administration's appointees have been competence, substantive expertise, and a commitment to your administration's agenda," the Copyright Alliance, a group of three-plus dozen content owners, wrote the president Monday (.pdf). "We have every confidence these hallmarks will be demonstrated in your future IP policy appointments."
The communication was also in response to a letter the copyleft, represented by about two dozen public interest groups, sent Obama three weeks ago. That missive urged the president to stop tapping RIAA insiders to his administration. That letter by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge and others fell on deaf ears.
I think we all must be duped. When Obama said he was bringing change, he actually meant collecting spare change to help pay-off his burgeoning deficit, not that he was going to listen to the People.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
You are a moron.
A crime is a crime. Killing innocent people as part of a deliberate attempt to xripple an enemy (even to end war) is still killing innocent people. There is no doubt that the people who decided to toss the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki knew that thousands of innocent people would die. They deliberately killed innocent people. Mass-murdered.
The Nazi's thought that Jews brought the holocaust on to themselves too. Don't you see how stupid your perspective is!?!
One crime does not justify another. I'm not saying we should never go to war, but randomly (or worse, deliberately) killing innocent people is a crime.
Yes it was. Look up the "Project for a New American Century." 9/11 is what gave them the political capital needed to go forward with the "regime change" they had been clamoring for since the 90s.
The 16 amendment brings taxes into bear. We started the country because we were being taxed without being represented. This is why there was no Income Tax before the 16th amendment. Now, once again, we are not being represented for our taxes. That means there is legal precedent to support a revolution.
Last I checked, elected representatives are the ones who approve increases in taxes.
So which taxes are you talking about where "we are not being represented"??
/And AFAIK, income taxes became permanent because sales taxes were regressive and government wanted to redistribute the burden
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
In other news, Disney corporation made about 3 million dollars yesterday from Winnie-the-Pooh merchandising, as it has every single bloody day since copyright law was changed to prevent Pooh from entering the public domain in 2001.
Backlash, meet billions. Billions, backlash.
With politicians voting the winner.
Guess what...
Bear beats backlash without mussing a hair.
This would not have worked for one simple reason -- there were only TWO BOMBS AVAILABLE. It would be many months before more would have been made. There were none to spare on "warning shots".
It could be argued that the second bomb should have been deferred to see if the first one alone would have the desired effect (surrender), but the second bomb wasn't so much to break Japan as it was to intimidate the USSR. That's the real crime -- that Japan had to pay for a pissing match between two allies.
Mal-2
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
The Consumers International IP Watch List is a counter-USTR 301 Report, released simultaneously, which lists countries according to our friendly their IP laws are to consumers, rather than how strongly those laws benefit creators. On this list, interestingly, the US is listed in the same company as China and India, countries which it strongly criticises in its 301 Report! The worst of all countries in the Consumers International list is the United Kingdom.
Well, the first one unquestionably ended the war pretty damn quick. Granted, they could've, say, detonated it off the coast of Japan, first, to demonstrate their might *before* wiping out tens of thousands of civilians. But, hey, I'll be generous and give the US a pass on the first bomb.
But the second one? That amounted to nothing more than unjustifiable butchery.
I guess you don't recall that there were only two bombs available, and the Japanese didn't surrender till 6 days after the second bomb was dropped on them. There wasn't a bomb available for a warning shot. In addition to that, Truman let them know in no uncertain terms that if they didn't unconditionally surrender, they would face "prompt and utter destruction." They were warned again, before the second bomb was released.
You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
"(By the way, I thought the European Union forbids deficit spending of its member states?)"
Nope, it theoretically limits it to 3% yearly, but it isn't actually enforced so it's more like wishfull thinking (especially in the current 'let's spend ourselves out of this crisis' climate).
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
japan surrendered BEFORE the bombs were dropped
[citation needed]
From Wikipedia:
On July 26, Truman and other allied leaders issued The Potsdam Declaration outlining terms of surrender for Japan. It was presented as an ultimatum and stated that without a surrender, the Allies would attack Japan, resulting in "the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland" but the atomic bomb was not mentioned. On July 28, Japanese papers reported that the declaration had been rejected by the Japanese government. That afternoon, Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki declared at a press conference that the Potsdam Declaration was no more than a rehash (yakinaoshi) of the Cairo Declaration and that the government intended to ignore it (mokusatsu lit. "kill by silence").[16] The statement was taken by both Japanese and foreign papers as a clear rejection of the declaration. Emperor Hirohito, who was waiting for a Soviet reply to noncommittal Japanese peace feelers made no move to change the government position.[17] On July 31, he made clear to his advisor KÅichi Kido that the Imperial Regalia of Japan had to be defended at all costs.[18]
In early July, on his way to Potsdam, Truman had re-examined the decision to use the bomb. In the end, Truman made the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. His stated intention in ordering the bombings was to bring about a quick resolution of the war by inflicting destruction and instilling fear of further destruction in sufficient strength to cause Japan to surrender.
Doesn't sound like they surrendered.
"The problem now [August 13] is whether or not, assuming the Japanese do not capitulate, to continue dropping them every time one is made and shipped out there or whether to hold them . . . and then pour them all on in a reasonably short time. Not all in one day, but over a short period. And that also takes into consideration the target that we are after. In other words, should we not concentrate on targets that will be of the greatest assistance to an invasion rather than industry, morale, psychology, and the like? Nearer the tactical use rather than other use." - General of the Army George Marshall
That memo from 4 days after the bomb fell at Nagasaki, doesn't exactly make it seem like the individual in charge of the United States army though the Japanese were about to surrender, since he was basically asking to use atomic weapons to soften up Japanese defenses for a land invasion.
On August 12, the Emperor informed the imperial family of his decision to surrender. One of his uncles, Prince Asaka, then asked whether the war would be continued if the kokutai could not be preserved. Hirohito simply replied "of course".[66] As the Allied terms seemed to leave intact the principle of the preservation of the Throne, Hirohito recorded on August 14 his capitulation announcement which was broadcast to the Japanese nation the next day despite a short rebellion by militarists opposed to the surrender.
You'll notice that the Emperor didn't intend to surrender unless the kokutai could be preserved. You'll also notice there were rebellions amongst the military elite.
You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill