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."
Just once I'd like to see the European Union Parliament issue a joint resolution to the White House:
"Fuck off."
Just to see what would happen.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Yes, the USA as a whole, seems to be living in a time where WWII just got over. We seem to think that in WWII we singlehandedly A) Rebuilt Europe B) Rebuilt Japan (which, does have some merit to that, but only after we managed to commit some of the most terrible crimes against humanity via the atomic bombs) C) Defeated both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. When history tells a different story. Then we also brag about our "win" in the Cold War against Soviet Russia *insert some joke here* and how by our superior diplomacy ended up saving humanity, no thanks to Russia, the other nations affected or the Russian people who opposed the Kremlin. Really, the USA thinks that they are the only thing holding humanity back from utter destruction and because of that the USA must be the country you model your countries after, including our draconian copyright laws, lack of free speech or other constitutional guarantees, the encroachment of government into business, the general failure of our economy, etc.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
The US Dollar is backed by the world's largest prison system, the IRS, and nuclear weapons.
Think about it before laughing.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Not going to happen. What might happen instead is the usual mix of embargoes, paper resolutions, backroom deals and "diplomacy", but outright war? You're kidding yourself.
Pretty much the only times a modern nation will go to war is when it thinks it can win. Meaning against an opponent who hasn't the economic or military wherewithal to stand up and make the invader hurt. Hell, even in Iraq, the actual hurt being done to the US forces is being done by civilian insurgents, not an actual military.
Name me one ground war since WWII that was fought between two developed nations that were anywhere near on equal footing. You can't. Even stuff like the Falklands war hardly qualifies as a "ground war", while 'Nam and Korea were the US against tiny nations that had bigger powers backing them by proxy. Do you really think that will change? Or that copyright will be the motive if it does?
All the countries that the US opposes on the copyright issue are either first world nations or military powers in their own right. The little backwaters that it could actually clobber haven't the economic or political capital to make a copyright war worthwhile for the corporations that would promote such a measure. You really think the US is prepared for a ground war with Russia? How about Sweden? China? Canada? Please.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
There is a fine balance imo. China is like Geocities. There is a lot of shit coming out China for every geniune innovation.
The same could be said for any market, thats why we have reviews, if every game was as good as *insert favorite game here, as to not start a flamewar* then there wouldn't be a need for game reviews. Same thing for books, etc.
The nice thing about China though is, everything is cheap and unhampered by corporations. For example, if they manage to get Bluetooth in there, they aren't going to disable tethering, etc. like what the phone monopolies in the USA make vendors do. You similarly are going to get cheap, unlocked phones. Most people's phones (especially 20-somes and teenagers) don't have a long life. For example, a phone accidentally dropped in a cup of coffee is probably going to be dead no matter if it was a top of the line phone from Nokia or Samsung or if it was a generic Chinese crap phone. So quality really doesn't matter, and the cloned phones have enough features that people need in a dumbphone (SMS, calls, sometimes a touchscreen or full keyboard, camera, etc) while not costing $300 unlocked.
While we do need the freedom to improve upon things we also need protection from companies making shoddy knock-offs
Sure, but that already happens in America, if we simply enforce trademark and weak copyright you don't get deceived that the cheap phone you bought was an iPhone, but there will be cheap iPhone-like phones available. Everyone wins. (And if you don't think that the iPhone is already cloned, it already is by most cell phone vendors here in the USA, the difference is you pay $400 for the rip off rather then $100)
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Why do we see so many (innovative and clone) products from China? Because they don't have the stupidities of US patent and copyright laws.
It's interesting to note that we did the exact same thing in the 1800s with any and all technology that we could manage to get our hands on during our industrial revolution phase.
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.
Simple rules to allow artists and creators to make a living off of being artists aren't bad things. I'm perfectly fine with a musician being ticked that someone's jacking their music, writings, or whatever.
In fact, if the RIAA and MPAA actually operated within those confines, I'm sure we'd have nowhere near the issue that we have now. The problem I have with the copyright lobby is that they've become a lobby. They don't value add, and they employ methods of enforcement that should be illegal. If they understood that their business model needs changing, and were willing to work *with* the markets instead of *against* the people, I'd see them as quite good and helpful.
Sadly, their impression of embracing technology involves wiretapping, and not using the wire to sell and distribute.
Now, onto your iPhone example - I think that you should concentrate elsewhere. In Japan, the iPhone is nothing special. They have excellent cutting edge phones, but from what I've gathered they do tend to be a little less reliable software wise. The features they have make the iPhone rather pedestrian (http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/02/why-the-iphone/). In the case of the US, we do have a massive phone market, with a lot of competition, and decent product lines. It's not amazing by any stretch, but we have very solid phones, and they're engineered for reliability since that seems to be more important to the market here. Make no mistake, there's a lot of choice in the US.
Suddenly, Canada's 50% of gdp looks positively cheery.
At rates we were going before the child-like and ignorant Conservatives decided to follow the Americans into the pit of despair and debt, it was going to take only 50 years to pay off the debt at current rates(before accounting for inflation).
It's been a long time.
I could create a budget to pay-off the United States debt in 5 maybe 10 years time. The only problem is that my budget would involve moving SSI from an "everyone's eligible" system to a "only poor are eligible" system, and none of the voters would want to hear that. Plus my budget would cut military spending to near-zero, and the military-industrial complex doesn't want that either.
I'd likely end-up assassinated. But if the U.S. ever wants to get out of debt, there is no other way except to cut spending. The alternative, hyperinflation of the dollar until you need 10,000 dollars to buy a loaf of bread, is too horrible to contemplate. The only good solution is to sacrifice.
Oh well.
For once I'm glad the U.S. is in 15th place. Normally when we fall behind nations like Norway or Sweden on the internet speeds, I think that's bad, but in this case I'm glad we carry less debt than they do. (By the way, I thought the European Union forbids deficit spending of its member states?)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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.
You know, one thing I've noticed about legal professionals is that they tend to be absolutely loyal to the highest bidder. Which means that when they switch employers, they switch loyalties. And they don't report to Hollywood any more.
I'm not saying they'll necessarily change their attitudes towards the MAFIAA but that it's no longer personally necessary to them to push their old agenda. They report to the chief executive now. My point? Where they used to work may be a flawed predictor for what they're going to do. To turn a phrase on its head, in this case "causation isn't correlation" and to think otherwise would likely impinge upon ad hominem.
To be charitable, we need to give them a chance to repent their misspent youth. And if they don't, I suggest we stone them in a cobblestoned street.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Which is nothing compared to the war crimes the Japanese themselves managed to commit.
War crimes committed by the Japanese armed forces do not justify war crimes committed by the US. It's a very bad road to travel. These sorts of justifications for war crimes suddenly look far less attractive when the situation is reversed. Many of the military top brass considered the bombings to be unnecessary and also a heinous act.
e.g.
During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude...
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
- Admiral William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
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.
With Russia entering the war against Japan, they were already going to surrender pretty soon and the US knew it. The US military casualty estimates were originally nowhere near the 1 million level. The figures were being inflated in an attempt to justify the atomic bombings. However, even if the casualty estimates were right, it still does not justify the bombings. If it's ok for the US to murder several hundred thousand civilians in order to keep its own military casualties down, then it's also ok for anyone else. Would you accept Russia nuking Georgian cities in a future conflict in order to save the lives of Russian soldiers? If an enemy used similar tactics in order to cut down its military casualties, there would be virtually no-one arguing that it was justified (other than in the enemy country).
Surely he has done something about those specific issues. The wrong thing maybe, but undeniably (and regrettably) something.
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
Yep. I teach physics at a community college. The school seems all too ready to accept propaganda from the publishers. At one of our yearly convocation breakfasts, they passed out a little booklet about copyright to all the faculty. The booklet was written by a publishing industry association, and you'd better believe that the words "fair use" occurred absolutely nowhere inside.
Most college professors don't know how many high-quality free books there are to choose from -- see my sig. I use free books in all my courses. I just had an interesting talk with an econ professor at my school who has just adopted a free book put out by flatworldknowledge.com.
One thing I see in the halls of the faculty offices that's really scary is that the textbook reps are pushing electronic books like crazy -- but these books are apparently distributed with DRM, on a rental basis, so that as soon as the student stops paying, the book stops working.
Find free books.