Slashdot Mirror


Senator Applauds Pirate Bay Trial, Chides Canada

eldavojohn writes "Republican Senator Orrin Hatch spoke Tuesday at the World Copyright Summit in Washington DC and hailed the Pirate Bay guilty verdict as an important victory. He expressed severe disappointment in Canada for showing up on our watch list for piracy next to China and Russia. Senator Hatch also said, 'In fact, one study reports that each year, copyright piracy from motion pictures, sound recordings, business and entertainment software, and video games costs the US economy $58 billion in total output, costs American workers 373,375 jobs and $16.3 billion in earnings, and costs federal, state, and local governments $2.6 billion in tax revenue. During this time of economic turmoil, we must ensure that all copyrighted works, both here and abroad, are protected from online theft and traditional physical piracy. After all, US copyright-based industries continue to be one of America's largest and fastest-growing economic sectors.' GamePolitics notes that for his 2006 campaign, Hatch was rented for $7,000 by the RIAA and also got on his knees for $12,640 from the MPAA."

526 comments

  1. OK republican shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    start defending this idiot.

    1. Re:OK republican shills by halivar · · Score: 1

      You're pointing five feet to the left of me. Take the plank out and you'll see better.

    2. Re:OK republican shills by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Funny

      start defending this idiot.

      Okay... uh... he works hard for the bribes the mafiaa pays him. You can't accuse him of not delivering.

    3. Re:OK republican shills by Sun.Jedi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In all the brouhaha from the payout, to wall street vs main, TARP, GM, Chryseler, Sotamayor, and great big plans for the new Health care... if the Republicans couldn't find something to take a stand on, anything ... then they deserve what they get. Outvoted and silenced. I find it odd, from news a few weeks back that the recognized "voice of the Republican party" is Rush Limbaugh; and Mr. Limbaugh is a self-proclaimed "non-party" conservative. Is there is point in defending Republicans? Sadly, they are leaderless, clueless, and helpless. I have faith in conservatism, but no faith in Republicans to bring about conservatism.

    4. Re:OK republican shills by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sadly, they are leaderless, clueless, and helpless.

      That's what people said about the Democrats before they were able to adopt "Hey, at least we're not Bush!" as their slogan.

    5. Re:OK republican shills by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, but what does the Republican Party have to do with conservatism?

      Republicans are about as conservative as the Communist party.

    6. Re:OK republican shills by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Today's republicans are like democrats from 50 years ago, today's democrats are like liberals from 50 years ago, and today's liberals are like libertarians from 50 years ago. I myself prefer to be independent and back any good ideas and shun any bad ones.

      50 years from today, I imagine politics will still suck.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    7. Re:OK republican shills by cml4524 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah, yes, the old "no true scotsman" argument. Standby of the man who's lost every rationale he ever had to defend what means the most to him.

      Republicans spent many years villifying anyone who dared to disagree with them on any issue while elevating filth such as Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Beck to spokespersons and role models for their movement.

      Republicans opened religious and geopolitical extremists with open arms which relegated all the moderates to Independence or pushed them into the democratic party. They elected a stuttering buffoon who drove the country deep into debt with nothing to show for it, destroyed our standing with the rest of the world as a beacon of hope and leadership, and forced a division of loyalties not seen in this country for nearly 50 years.

      For their troubles they've been pushed to the fringe by a reliably moderate majority of Americans who have had enough with their extremist views and tactics. Now the republicans are finding that fearmongering and hate only go so far before people get wise to those antics and reject them for more intelligent and useful ideas.

      The republicans made this bed. Now they can lie in it until they decide to clean up their act and start acting in a responsible and adult manner again. Or, they can die and let a more thoughtful and reasonable opposition to the democrats replace them. Either way, the republicans are what they are, and it's rapidly sending them to the abyss of irrelevance.

      All that said, democrats in this thread bashing Hatch because of the R next to his name would do well to remember that our democratic vice president is pretty friendly to the same people Hatch is, and our president is staffing key legal positions with ex-lawyers from the types of firms that would be more than happy to prosecute torrent users and hosters on American soil the way the Pirate Bay was tried.

    8. Re:OK republican shills by JumpDrive · · Score: 1

      Republicans just think they are more conservative than the Communist Party.

    9. Re:OK republican shills by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or the republicans can just wait for the democrats to f' it all up and have the pendulum swing back the other way.

      The problem is that anytime one side 'wins' they think it gives them 'a mandate' to push any and all of their policies regardless of how extremist they are. This inevitably always backfires and ends with the other party in power once again.

    10. Re:OK republican shills by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Sorry, no. You're ranting about Republicans, not conservatives. The Republicans have certainly made their own bed as you say, but to call them conservative is idiotic. Unlike the Scotsman argument, conservatism is definitely something that is well-defined, and external to the USA's current political parties. The current Republican Party doesn't (and hasn't for years) exemplify any conservative values at all, the biggest of which is fiscal responsibility.

    11. Re:OK republican shills by Stargoat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Orrin Hatch is the same dumbass that 4 years ago proposed developing a way to destroy computers that illegally download music. Hatch has family connections to the RIAA, his kid did some legal work for them a while back. But perhaps his real reason for supporting stupid copyright laws is that he wants to make money as a singer-songwriter of Christian music.

      Orrin Hatch is routinely among the most annoying men in Washington, and that is saying something.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    12. Re:OK republican shills by Moryath · · Score: 1, Troll

      Yep. Congress's approval ratings are still lower than Bush's lowest presidential ratings, but because they have Chicago Obama in the White House, they think they can do whatever they want.

      Elect a corrupt chicago-style politician, get a corrupt chicago-style white house.

      Say what you will about politics otherwise - I prefer when our system is working as intended, and the checks and balances come from competing interests balancing each other out. Let one party get hold of House, Senate, and Presidency all at once, and you get crap like the bailouts, the Sotomayor appointment, and Comrade Obama's Super-Magical Miracle Snake Oil "health care reform."

    13. Re:OK republican shills by Talderas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One could describe a significant portion of Republicans as Neo-statists rather than conservatives. There are very few true conservatives in Congress. I find it funny that libertarians many times dislike conservatives while not understanding the definition of true conservatism. The truth is that when it comes to the federal government there is no difference between a libertarian and a conservative, it is only once you drill down to state and local governments where differences begin to form.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    14. Re:OK republican shills by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      He works hard for the money, so hard for the money, so you better treat him right.

      It's good form to try to work in some infringement when posting these things.

    15. Re:OK republican shills by McBeer · · Score: 1

      Just FYI, the first bailout was passed by the Bush administration, Sotomayor hasn't been confirmed yet so checks/balances can still occur, Obama's health care legislation has yet to occur so that too could still be checked/balanced.

      also "corrupt chicago-style politician"

      [Citation Needed]

      --
      Hikery.net - The best hiking site ever. Made by yours truly.
    16. Re:OK republican shills by Sj0 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sorry, conservatism seems to involve a few things:

      Fiscal conservatism means spending less money. Republicans fail on this point, and when adjusting for inflation, have consistently spent far more than Democrats for as long as most of us have been alive (since President Ford definitely -- Isn't 4 presidents doing something a trend?).

      Social conservatism means keeping things the way they are socially. Republicans are attaching themselves to religious extremists means exactly the opposite.

      Legislative conservatism means less government interference in our lives. 8 years of Republican rule led to an unprecedented increase in government power. Now it's perfectly ok to kidnap regular folks and send them to Syria to be tortured1. Oh, and now the federal government owns half of the banking and auto industries.

      Monetary conservatism means keeping the money supply in check to ensure there isn't high inflation. The Bush era saw a large increase in the money supply and record low interest rates at the federal reserve.

      Finally, from where I'm standing, conservatism requires a legislator to look backwards and go "Ok, how have we solved this problem in the past?"

      They're not conservatives unless you accept the definition of conservatism as "What those folks say it is".

      The only conservative I can see is Ron Paul, and they want him the fuck out. What are his sins? Trying to keep spending in check; Trying to limit government intervention in the economy and around the world; trying to limit government intervention in social issues; being a quiet but principled Christian; trying to ensure the federal reserve doesn't over-print money; and looking at the past for solutions to today's problems.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    17. Re:OK republican shills by Sj0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      HOLD IT.

      President Bush signed TARP, the largest of the bailouts into law, long before the election.

      How is that Obama's fault?

      --
      It's been a long time.
    18. Re:OK republican shills by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      As much as I dislike this idiot's suggestions, much of your post is libellous. Please cite references for your various accusations.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    19. Re:OK republican shills by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree. And the funny thing is, when I was in high school, we were still taught the definition of "socialism", "conservatism", and "libertarian". Seems like that may have stopped happening a while ago. Or people are just being *gasp* deliberately obtuse about their true meanings just to support their own political views.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    20. Re:OK republican shills by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      Does never being caught blowing anyone in public count as a positive in the Republican party? If so then that should be added.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    21. Re:OK republican shills by Golddess · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How is it libellous? Are you saying that being a Christian song writer is a bad thing and no one in their right mind would wish to have such a label applied to them?

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    22. Re:OK republican shills by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      I have faith in conservatism, but no faith in Republicans to bring about conservatism.

      Same here. I've temporarily adopted the Libertarian party, not because it's a perfect fit, but because they do more than give lip service to supporting actual conservative principles.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    23. Re:OK republican shills by code4fun · · Score: 2

      Just to be clear, Sen. Orrin does not represent every republican's view on this.

    24. Re:OK republican shills by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      I read wrong. I thought it said "his kid did some illegal work for them a while back".

      But yes, being a Christian song writer carries a worse stigma with it than being a child molester. Nobody in their right mind would want to be called one.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    25. Re:OK republican shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, because Republicans love government-granted monopolies, and our Democrat president hasn't appointed entertainment industry shill after shill after shill. Instead of blaming the Republicans for everything, you should start blaming idiots for these things. You might notice that they are everywhere, in every party. Would you like me to list all the Democrats who have colluded with Hatch over the years?

    26. Re:OK republican shills by NerveGas · · Score: 2, Informative

      You don't even need to think about bribes. He's recorded an album, and fancies himself as an artist.

      Don't forget that this is the man who advocating being able to remotely *destroy* computers of *suspected* "pirates".

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    27. Re:OK republican shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1, the tent shrank. Get the fuck out.

    28. Re:OK republican shills by Curtman · · Score: 5, Informative

      He expressed severe disappointment in Canada for showing up on our watch list for piracy next to China and Russia.

      Well we express severe disappointment in the U.S. for showing up on our watch list for nations that are known to use torture along with Israel, China, Iran and Afghanistan.

    29. Re:OK republican shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, but violating copyright is a far far worse crime than the mere use of extended interrogation techniques.

    30. Re:OK republican shills by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Hell hath no fury like an artist who feels he doesn't get what he deserves. And now matter how much they get, they never seem to be content. You know, I don't really like "artists" anymore, I'm so disgusted at that extreme entitlement complex.

      Madonna, you're an idiot. Damien Hirst, you're an ass. Mark Twain, you sucked.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    31. Re:OK republican shills by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      I wish I hadn't posted to this thread, so I could mod you funny.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    32. Re:OK republican shills by Buelldozer · · Score: 3, Informative

      HOLD IT.

      Unless my memory is faulty our CURRENT PRESIDENT voted for it himself...in his capacity as a United States Senator.

      Right there is how it's Obama's fault. He didn't try and stop it and actually voted FOR it.

      Also, please read the first paragraph of this link: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Economy/story?id=6654133&page=1

      Obama himself WANTED TARP and access to TARP money.

      All Bush did was sign it into law, it's the CONGRESS that made the program. In everyone's rush to BushBash they seem to forget how the U.S. Government actually works.

      Oh, and that same Congress that passed T.A.R.P. was majority DEMOCRAT!

      Isn't political bashing fun? It can go on all day...and not solve one god damned thing.

    33. Re:OK republican shills by maz2331 · · Score: 1

      On the Pirate Bay issue, I agree with him. They were running an organized conspiracy specifically to violate copyright law, even as written in Sweden. The smug attitude before, during, and after the trial destroys any bit of sympathy I ever had for these people. "Even if I had the money, I would burn it first" doesn't make one a sympathetic character. Screw them.

      I don't like the *AA side at all, but that doesn't mean that the pirates are heroes to me. The best-case scenerio is that they share a cell block.

      As for Canada, not so much. That's just him being a good *AA-owned property.

    34. Re:OK republican shills by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, so health insurance for kids, we veto that but unprecedented act of socialism and waste of tax dollars, we let that slide?

      "All Bush did" was betray his party and make himself into the devil that decimated the party.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    35. Re:OK republican shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To true fiscal conservatives, Bush abandoned them in like 2001. TARP wasn't a let down or a betrayal, just more of the same.

    36. Re:OK republican shills by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      You don't have to tell me twice there. I'm a strong fiscal conservative.

      But Republicans have been big spenders since Nixon took the currency of the last vestiges of a gold standard to make it easier to borrow and inflate. Going ahead and signing a bill that's basically handing a trillion bucks to various industries is suicide for the Republicans, who now have to deal with the fact that it's not Obama who gave out the first trillion.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    37. Re:OK republican shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Overall, the approval ratings of individual Democratic Congress members are much higher than Bush's ratings. It's the Republican Congress members' ratings that are dragging the Congress as a whole down.

    38. Re:OK republican shills by jamstar7 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mark Twain considered himself to be a storyteller. And his works are all public domain now. Guy's been dead a hundred years, quit including him in with the scum sucking leeches^F^F^Fcorporados^Fmedia companies...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    39. Re:OK republican shills by cml4524 · · Score: 1

      You can keep telling yourself that, but your so-called conservatives are the ones that kept them in power. So either conservatives are idiots who can't evaluate the political philosophies of the people they support - which is apparently your position - or conservatives happily ignored the fact that the republican party was blatantly redefining the conservative political position in the United States.

      Either conservatives in the U.S. have been happily voting against their own philosophy for about fifteen years, or they didn't mind the fact that the people they were voting for were blatantly redefining their political philosophy. Which is it?

      And regardless of whether you like or not, the republican party is conservative. They may not be whatever narrow brand of conservatism you're referring to (I'm assuming you're picking paleoconservative as your arbitrary definition of the much larger group that is "conservative"), but they're still under the big tent of "conservatism".

    40. Re:OK republican shills by Buelldozer · · Score: 1

      Your opinion is noted, and perhaps I agree with you, but that does not change the facts surrounding TARP or the workings of the U.S. Government.

      Bush signed it but only after Congress approved it, and that includes Obama's vote.

      I believe that Obama's vote for TARP, and his subsequent actions to obtain the round 2 monies, makes him *more* culpable for it than Bush.

    41. Re:OK republican shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that Obama's fault?

      I think the grandparent was referring to party monopolies in general, not just Democrats. That's debatable, and in any case you are right that the bailout came from Bush and a Democratic congress...

      But Obama's not innocent, and he and the Dems showed plenty of post-election support.

    42. Re:OK republican shills by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      So how about the fact that TARP was drafted and introduced by Treasury Secretary Paulson, a Bush nominee confirmed by a Republican dominated senate?

      It seems incredible to me that one party can be entirely responsible for drafting a bill, introducing it, then signing it into law, but dodge any responsibility for it later because they managed to get it through congress. "Oh, it was our idea and our bill, but it's the Democrats who wanted all that stuff!!"

      Again, I'd like to point to the contrast between TARP and Obama's later bailouts, which were much smaller, and carried much greater burden on those receiving them. I'm against any bailouts, but given a choice between the two sets of bailouts, I know which I'd choose.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    43. Re:OK republican shills by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Conservatives had a choice between two candidates, and they generally will go with the one that is more conservative. But saying one is more conservative than the other doesn't really give you an idea of how conservative they really are. Actually, I know some true conservatives that actually voted Obama because they were so sick of the republicans catering to the religious right and other more non-moderate, non-center demographics. I don't really think they agree much with Obama's policies, but as you said, they were sick of their party trying to redefine their political philosophy. So yeah, they were voting against some of their philosophies, but I doubt they were very happy about it. You can only have the wool pulled over your eyes so many times before you start to realize what you are being told and what is really happening are two very different things.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    44. Re:OK republican shills by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that be, "OK republican idiots, start defending this shill"?

    45. Re:OK republican shills by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Funny

      You know, he didn't say mark twain was an idiot ecause of anything copyright related. Dude just hates Samuel Clemens.

    46. Re:OK republican shills by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Sorry, no. You're ranting about Republicans, not conservatives. The Republicans have certainly made their own bed as you say, but to call them conservative is idiotic.

      Unfortunately for the economic conservatives in the Republican party, in the last 20-30 years, especially during the Bush administration, the louder voices have been those of the religious conservatives. They've stolen the name, and there doesn't seem to be much hope of getting it back any time soon.

    47. Re:OK republican shills by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Social conservatism means keeping things the way they are socially. Republicans are attaching themselves to religious extremists means exactly the opposite.

      I'm not quite sure if I agree with this one. The intolerance of any people that are different that is common in religious extremism has tended to be the social norm in the past. Acceptance of race, religion, and sexual orientation would be the progressive change.

    48. Re:OK republican shills by Buelldozer · · Score: 1

      I never said that Bush, or the Republicans, were without blame. What I AM saying is that it is not SOLELY the fault of the Republicans or Bush.

      Again I'd like to point out that Obama voted for TARP as a U.S. Senator, then FOUGHT to get the second round of it after he became President.

      I am judging him on his personal intent and actions.

      For what it's worth I was, and am, against bailouts of any kind. I am also a Libertarian, not a Republican.

    49. Re:OK republican shills by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately for the economic conservatives in the Republican party, in the last 20-30 years, especially during the Bush administration, the louder voices have been those of the religious conservatives.

      Exactly.

      They've stolen the name, and there doesn't seem to be much hope of getting it back any time soon.

      I really wonder about that now. The GOP seems to be flopping around like a dying fish out of water these days, having lost a lot of support due to the disastrous performance of the Bush administration, so I wonder if the economic conservatives might be able to take over the direction of the party. If the religious conservatives and neoconservatives maintain control, I just don't think they're going to get many votes.

    50. Re:OK republican shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Informative??? How about completely off friggin' topic! There is no rationale to the moderation system. People are stupid and here's just another example of how much. And then there's this: http://www.torturecare.org.uk/news/latest_news/2412 Oh, but the UK doesn't torture. Duh. Hello, everyone torture's who is involved in the war on terror. The rest who don't are just pussy sideline sitters.

    51. Re:OK republican shills by Quothz · · Score: 1

      Just to be clear, Sen. Orrin does not represent every republican's view on this.

      Yes, he does. This is a platform issue for Republicans; hizzoner Hatch is standing dead center on the party line. If you are a member of or support the Republican party, you are supporting these views.

      Oddly, I'm most definitely not Republican and support Hatch's statement. But not him: Hatch is a hypocritical, venal bastard. Remember when he got caught pirating software? Right after proposing that copyright holders should be allowed to destroy accused infringers' computers? And that's far (far!) from the worst thing he's done, although it may have been the funniest.

    52. Re:OK republican shills by dryeo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You agree with Hatch that Canada is in the same league as Russia and China about copyright infringement?
      Canada is not too different from the States and probably has about the same amount of copyright infringement. No one sells CDs or DVDs on the street corner unless they recorded it themselves with their own IP and I've only seen that twice. Downloading is probably equal to the rest of the western world. Only thing is there is no DMCA so if I purchase a DVD I can break the encryption and play it on my non-windows computer legally.
      Also IP based industry is perhaps even more important in Canada as so many American companies come up here to film movies.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    53. Re:OK republican shills by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      No, that was the slogan in 2004, still failed. In 2008 the slogan was: "Change". In other words: "We are not the other guys", more general than just "We are not Bush" ;)

    54. Re:OK republican shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Off topic? That was completely on topic.

    55. Re:OK republican shills by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Mark Twain wanted copyright to last for eternity.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    56. Re:OK republican shills by Quothz · · Score: 1

      You agree with Hatch that Canada is in the same league as Russia and China about copyright infringement?

      He didn't say that, I didn't say that: You're seeing words in your head that aren't there. Canadia is on the same list because Congress feels their laws and enforcement do not protect America's property interests well enough. While it's far from the greatest issue facing our nation, we'd totally prefer it if every nation honored the spirit of the various copyright-protection treaties.

      Only thing is there is no DMCA

      One thing I appreciated in Hatch's little speech was his admission that the DMCA isn't perfect, which is a pretty big stretch for him (he was a major supporter of the bill). I'm assuming you're trying to get me to make a DMCA-supporting statement, which I won't: It's a bad law in too many ways.

      Canada's issue isn't a lack of DMCA, but generally looser laws which are very hard to enforce civilly even with legitimate claims. Enforcement of a claim from outside the country is just a whisker shy of impossible.

    57. Re:OK republican shills by cml4524 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So 1 vote out of 535 and a continuation of someone else's policies and plans makes Obama more culpable than the man who actually proposed the idea - Paulson - and the only single man other than Paulson who ever had the ability to stop it - Bush.

      Makes perfect sense to me.

    58. Re:OK republican shills by tuxgeek · · Score: 1

      Unless my memory is faulty our CURRENT PRESIDENT voted for it himself...in his capacity as a United States Senator.

      Your memory IS at fault. Obama went along with the vote as that was the only way he could maintain momentum and keep support for the conservative leaning part of his base.

      All Bush did was sign it into law

      No again, Bush thought it up!

      Obama himself WANTED TARP and access to TARP money.
      Oh, and that same Congress that passed T.A.R.P. was majority DEMOCRAT!

      Your memory is severely faulted. You are defective. Must be neutralized.
      The congress was evenly split in political power before the election. Even though the repub side still had influence and momentum after 10 years of fucking the world up. The repubs called for TARP and the left side went along with the plan just as they had done on all other repub policies.
      It wasn't until after the election that the left gained majority control of both side of the house. Funny how they still seem hog tied by the repubs over changing the past 12 years of incompetent right-wing ideology.
      Please pull your head out of your ass before posting in the future.

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    59. Re:OK republican shills by Buelldozer · · Score: 1

      I'm so glad that you can admit the reality that Obama did vote for it.

      You can hand wave about "going along to maintain momentum" but that doesn't change a thing about his voting record.

      It also doesn't change the fact that he's now President, his party has a Congressional majority, and could stop it. It also doesn't change the fact that he fought, as President, to get the second rounding of funding after he took office.

      Your logic train has derailed, as has the original posters.

      You can't argue that Obama was just one man and didn't have the power and that Bush pushed it through as President and then turn around and argue that as President Obama somehow doesn't have the power to end it if he so chooses.

      Past Presidents have "thought up" many things that were presented to Congress and then shot down. Congress voted for this mess as they do ALL laws. Obama was a United States Senator and is now the President of the United States.

      I think that gives him a certain amount of culpability in what has happened with TARP. If you can't agree with that then I suggest you report back to Junior High Civics class.

    60. Re:OK republican shills by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Mark Twain wanted copyright to last for eternity.

      Cite?

      Problem of course is he wasn't Disneycorp.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    61. Re:OK republican shills by mpthompson · · Score: 1

      I can't defend Hatch, but I submitted the following story to SlashDot a month ago and it was rejected. It is disingenuous to pretend that politicians on both sides of the isle don't have their hands dirty.

      Just days after four Pirate Bay defendants were found guilty in Sweden, Vice President Joe Biden warned of the harms of Internet piracy at a private event organized by the MPAA in Washington, D.C. At the gala dinner on Tuesday evening, Biden lauded Hollywood, assailed movie piracy, and promised film executives that the Obama administration would pick "the right person" as its copyright czar. Biden also singled out Canada for criticism for not signing the treaty that led to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act or placing other anti-circumvention restrictions on its citizens.

    62. Re:OK republican shills by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Actually, no he doesn't.

      Hatch is a copyright holder and most of his positions concerning copyright stem from his wanting to protect his own interest.

      I also just checked and copyright isn't anywhere near the republican platform and hasn't been in a while. It was back in the late 1990's when the DMCA was coming around because it was created out of the ratification of two WIPO treaties , the WPPT and WCT which were designed to protect foreign copyright in any country. This mean that other countries with laxed rules would have to honor the other countries copyrights and that meant more money coming into the US. After the DMCA was created, other countries started backing off of thier commitments.

      As for agreeing with his speech but not him, that's propably because this has been largely a bipartisan issue for a long time. When RIAA lobies congress, they don't lobby one party more then another outside the majority in the respected houses. They lobby all the congress critters.

    63. Re:OK republican shills by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      I wasn't arguing with you, just responding. I was arguing with the original post that pinned the bailouts completely on Obama. You won't get argument from me that there's plenty of blame to go around.

      My problem is with this idea that the bailouts are a partisan thing, that you can be against the bailouts by being for the republicans. The Republicans are just as bad socialists as the Democrats. True capitalists wouldn't EVER draft a bill giving a trillion taxpayer dollars to a company just because they're not doing well. They'd NEVER sign such a bill into law.

      These companies made a fortune on bad assumptions, then lost a fortune on the same bad assumptions. Why the hell should companies that made the right choices be penalised?

      --
      It's been a long time.
    64. Re:OK republican shills by Curtman · · Score: 1

      The war of terror is over. The Republicans lost, get over it.

    65. Re:OK republican shills by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      Is O'Reilly even a Republican? I cannot recall him ever stating 'Republican' as his party affiliation or indeed any party affiliation at all. The Republicans may chose to use him as an 'example' of a good Republican, but that does not mean that O'Reilly is affiliated with them or supports their platform, even if by coincidence they are in agreement on certain issues.

    66. Re:OK republican shills by Quothz · · Score: 1

      I also just checked and copyright isn't anywhere near the republican platform and hasn't been in a while.

      Good grief. Read it again, only this time use your eyes and not your imagination. A hint: Look under "Free and Fair Trade".

      When RIAA lobies congress, they don't lobby one party more then another outside the majority in the respected houses. They lobby all the congress critters.

      That's a good point, but I refuse to affiliate with any party. I loathe politicians on an individual basis.

    67. Re:OK republican shills by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      There is one sentence about pirating. It actually says "We pledge stronger action to protect intellectual property rights against pirating and will aggressively oppose the direct and indirect subsidies by which some governments tilt the world playing field against American producers." mixed in with protecting consumers against tainted food, bad trade and so on. While intellectual property would include copyright, it isn't singling it out.

      I don't consider that a core platform issue, and as the parent said, it still doesn't mean that he speaks for every republican. People can disagree with parts of a party platform and still not leave the party. For Instance, I think John McCain was a mistake to put up for president. He made a lot of friends with the other side early on in the run up to the 2000 primaries and couldn't shut his mouth after that by pissing the party and party supporters off. It wasn't a gain in his support, it was just a small shift from one party to another. However, it didn't mean that I ran out and voted against him even though I didn't like his positions on a lot of things. There simply was no one who had better positions on what I liked.

      That's a good point, but I refuse to affiliate with any party. I loathe politicians on an individual basis.

      I don't identify with a party either. I have found myself siding with the republicans a lot though.

    68. Re:OK republican shills by dryeo · · Score: 1

      You agree with Hatch that Canada is in the same league as Russia and China about copyright infringement?

      He didn't say that, I didn't say that: You're seeing words in your head that aren't there. Canadia is on the same list because Congress feels their laws and enforcement do not protect America's property interests well enough. While it's far from the greatest issue facing our nation, we'd totally prefer it if every nation honored the spirit of the various copyright-protection treaties.

      Don't worry, we'd prefer if you kept your treaties as well. Perhaps if your country acted with honour you'd get more respect. One example which has actually resulted in real lost jobs around here and been bad for the local economy is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softwood_lumber_dispute.

      Only thing is there is no DMCA

      One thing I appreciated in Hatch's little speech was his admission that the DMCA isn't perfect, which is a pretty big stretch for him (he was a major supporter of the bill). I'm assuming you're trying to get me to make a DMCA-supporting statement, which I won't: It's a bad law in too many ways.

      Did you actually read his speech? I quote

      When we passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998, one of my goals was to address the problems caused when copyrighted works are disseminated through the Internet and other electronic transmissions without the authority of the copyright owner.

      By establishing clear rules of the road, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act served as the catalyst that has allowed electronic commerce to flourish. I believe the DMCA, while not perfect, has nonetheless played a key role in moving our nationâ(TM)s copyright law into the digital age.

      which to me and what I know of the Senator, sounds like he wishes the law was more encompassing. Personally I bought a new DVD yesterday and to watch it on my computer would be illegal if I was in the States.

      Canada's issue isn't a lack of DMCA, but generally looser laws which are very hard to enforce civilly even with legitimate claims. Enforcement of a claim from outside the country is just a whisker shy of impossible.

      Well we do consider the right to privacy to be important and also believe in justice rather then whoever has the money can sue and win without having any merits in the case.
      Still if you want to talk about loose laws, here the music industry demanded changes to the law. Mainly that they get paid every time I buy a CD to back up something or a tape to video tape my son growing up. In trade for this money grab was the recognition that we have a right to make personal copies of music.
      Meanwhile your country stands alone as encouraging commercial copyright infringement as long as you call it a joke or satire. And when you satirize some Canadian content does your justice system punish the commercial infringers? At least here the cops do swoop down pretty quick on commercial infringement. Which is good as someone paying money for pirated material would also probably pay for original material.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  2. Well... by Random2 · · Score: 1

    He seems to forget that some people can afford those things for reasons beyond their control, or they're so over-priced anyways that people wouldn't normally buy them. Bottom line, without pirating they'd be lucky to be making a quarter of that amount.

    --
    "Our goal each year should be to increase the number of goals we set for ourselves!"
    1. Re:Well... by spacefiddle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, i love how in business can you count "money we never got or even came close to seeing" as a "loss."

      This one time, i was in a convenience store, and i saw someone else had won a million dollars in a lottery. I didn't have an extra dollar on me for a lottery ticket at the time, since the public transit token machine ate one of my dollars. Ergo, PUBLIC TRANSIT COST ME A MILLION DOLLARS!!11!1

      oh wait, that 'extra' dollar would have gone to something useful with value to me... not a lottery ticket.

      /facepalm

    2. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you assume he's not factoring in the number of people who simply wouldn't make the purchase into the figures he's saying?

    3. Re:Well... by Divebus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh, that's nothing. Think how much money this "Fair Use" nonsense has cost the industry.

      --

      Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    4. Re:Well... by mtempsch · · Score: 1

      Why do you assume he's not factoring in the number of people who simply wouldn't make the purchase into the figures he's saying?

      Past performance? Presenting cooked numbers & flawed studies is after all S.O.P. for the media business and its hang-arounds.

    5. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, i love how in business can you count "money we never got or even came close to seeing" as a "loss."

      This one time, i was in a convenience store, and i saw someone else had won a million dollars in a lottery. I didn't have an extra dollar on me for a lottery ticket at the time, since the public transit token machine ate one of my dollars. Ergo, PUBLIC TRANSIT COST ME A MILLION DOLLARS!!11!1

      oh wait, that 'extra' dollar would have gone to something useful with value to me... not a lottery ticket.

      /facepalm

      blame darpa... they invented the interwebs of piracy

    6. Re:Well... by damien_kane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      blame darpa... they invented the interwebs of piracy

      So it's all Al Gore's fault?

    7. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Al Gore invented DARPA too?

    8. Re:Well... by fpgaprogrammer · · Score: 5, Funny

      I always thought those studies put piracy on the wrong side of the balance sheet: that's 56 billions dollars saved; not a 56 billion dollar cost. 373,000 jobs lost? That's over 15 millions hours each week of free time to spend with children

    9. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. I'll admit to pirating. I'll also admit that if I didn't pirate it, I simply wouldn't watch/use it. If it looks good enough (a movie, for example) I'll pay to go to the theater. Otherwise I download movies to kill time, and I could easily kill time by doing something else besides watching films that aren't worth the money.

    10. Re:Well... by pintpusher · · Score: 1

      Thankfully, *someone*'s thinking about the children!

      --
      man, I feel like mold.
    11. Re:Well... by xero314 · · Score: 1

      Not a fair analogy. In your example you would not have gotten anything out of the lottery ticket had you had a dollar or not. In the case of copyright infringement the one doing the infringing is getting something out of the product whether they pay for it or not. To make you analogy work you would have had to won a million dollars without actually purchasing the lottery ticket (say by producing a counterfeit copy, which is really what copyright infringement is).

    12. Re:Well... by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Take it a step farther, and think of how much money the record industry could make if they could just impose an arbitrary tax on all people! There are, what, 300 million people in the US? Assume each person really should be buying 10 albums a year (whether they want them or not) at $20 per CD, and the RIAA can pull down $60 billion a year. Think of how good that would be for the economy!

      I mean, if we're going to absolve the industry from having to provide a service that people want to pay for, then we may as well go in whole hog.

    13. Re:Well... by pwfffff · · Score: 1

      "Not a fair analogy. In your example you would not have gotten anything out of the lottery ticket had you had a dollar or not."

      So 'woosh' it's not even funny.

    14. Re:Well... by cthulu_mt · · Score: 1

      DARPA invented Skynet and Al Gore is a robot.

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
    15. Re:Well... by squallbsr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I personally believe that these piracy figures in the multi-billion dollar ranges are actually some sort of tax-evasion-scheme by RIAA/MPAA...

      --
      Sleep: A completely inadequate substitution for Caffeine.
    16. Re:Well... by Sj0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      In Canada they did that.

      Which is why this is having such a hard time making file sharing illegal.

      And as for the politicians....Do you want to be the guy to say "Good news everyone, we're making it so the music industry can sue you for millions!"

      --
      It's been a long time.
    17. Re:Well... by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      Please don't give them ideas like that! It is bad enough insurance companies found a way to force everyone to give them money. We don't need anyone else.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    18. Re:Well... by easyTree · · Score: 2, Insightful

      think of how much money the record industry could make if they could just impose an arbitrary tax on all people

      Uhh? you mean like the Canadian copyright levy on blank audio recording media ?

    19. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but statistically, some of those hours saved to spend with children must belong to pedophiles. Think of the children, even more!

    20. Re:Well... by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      It is bad enough insurance companies found a way to force everyone to give them money.

      Actually, I kinda like the idea of manditory no-fault auto insurance. Woulda saved me some serious headaches when I got centerpunched 30 years ago. Just rig it to where they can't cancel on you if somebody hits you and we'd be golden.

      As far as health insurance here in the US goes, it needs some serious overhauling. I worked for a few years in a collection agency that specialised in health debt collection. Something like 30% of your healthcare dollar here in the US goes to satisfying the damned paperwork, and ghods help you if you actually needed to use your health insurance. Your rates went up til they could figure a way to drop you like a rock. The doctor's malpractice insurance rose up to the point where the doctors ordered TONS of unnecessary tests just to rule out stuff that they knew wasn't the problem, but it was all CYA. The patient's insurance screamed when they did that cause of all the 'unnecessary tests' drove up the costs, but if they didn't order those tests, the malpractice insurance dropped the doctors for NOT adequately and agressively attempting to reduce the risk of a malpractice suit. It's a fucking mess, and something needs to be done. What, exactly? Hell, if you can figure that out, you're smarter than I am...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    21. Re:Well... by DJGrahamJ · · Score: 1

      haha that's a good point. I know you're being tongue-in-cheek but from a socially conscious point of view isn't it better that $56B be spread amongst many citizens rather than accumulated by an already wealthy few?

    22. Re:Well... by dryeo · · Score: 2, Informative

      And Canada doesn't even have "Fair Use". So obviously the States is even worse then Canada about Copyright, letting people infringe copyright for satire, parody etc.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing#Fair_dealing_in_Canada

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    23. Re:Well... by geordie_loz · · Score: 1

      This was exactly what came to mind when I read this headline. Surely if canada are paying a tax on blank media/ipods, then tough MPAA and RIAA, they've paid for the music already, and if they were to do it here (UK), then I (one who does not pirate music etc) would then feel quite justified in doing so as effectively I've paid. So "piracy" goes up..

    24. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See National Endowment for the Arts

    25. Re:Well... by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      Al Gore worked for DARPA and one of the projects he worked on was the precursor to the internet. This is why he claims he invented the internet.

  3. Not a Loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If someone download a movie, game or song doesn't mean they would have paid for it if they couldn't. So those loss calculations are wrong

    1. Re:Not a Loss by nicolas.kassis · · Score: 1

      they have some random accounting rules that allow them to guesstimate instead of using facts.

    2. Re:Not a Loss by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      this does need to be said, over and over again. just to counter the 'think of our lost sales!' woes.

      in fact, you can't know what the net effect is of non-paid non-authorized downloads.

      it does cut into a percentage of sales.

      it also ENCOURAGES a percentage of sales.

      some people would pay for the movie/music if at the right price, so this factor in the equation is a 'conditional' and not any kind of linear term.

      there are MANY complex issues that would formulate the net gain or loss due to 'downloading'. anyone who says they have a reliable model for predicting the loss is, well, full of shit.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:Not a Loss by HockeyPuck · · Score: 0, Troll

      How many would have bought the movie/game if you could NOT download it? I know of plenty of people that download games/movies because they don't believe they are worth it to buy them. How many people avoid going to the movie in the theater because "I'd rather download it for FREE than spend $20 to see it in the movies".

      So if Terminator 4 was downloaded 1million times in the US, one could say that it cost the $18million ($18 for the DVD) plus the government $1,260,000 in taxes (assuming 7% taxes).

      $1.26m buys a lot of textbooks for schools.

      The people that do the most complaining about this ("I should have it for free, let someone else pay for it!") are those that don't have any Intellectual Property that they would like to profit from.

    4. Re:Not a Loss by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 0

      They DO admit they have no reliable model.

      However, they hired their budgeter from that aboriginal tribe whose numerical knowledge goes "1$, 2$, Many$". Since all numbers above three are Many, they can make up anything they like and "be right".

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    5. Re:Not a Loss by twidarkling · · Score: 5, Informative

      So if Terminator 4 was downloaded 1million times in the US, one could say that it cost the $18million ($18 for the DVD) plus the government $1,260,000 in taxes (assuming 7% taxes).

      Okay, I *saw* terminator 4 in theatres, and lemme tell you, it was NOT worth the price. If a friend hadn't bought my ticket, I wouldn't have watched it. But to my friend, it was worth the price because we were seeing it together. That's the difference. He was getting a value out of it separate to the value of the movie.

      To me, the best pro-piracy argument is it allows people to not reward people for making shit products. If piracy wasn't available, I'd have to pay $60 to find out that new game is absolute ass-nuggets, I'd have to pay at least $10 to see a movie in the theatres to know it was crap, not including travel time, waiting time, concessions, etc. Why should someone benefit from my enforced inability to check the quality of their product before I shell out full price? You can't tell me you've never watched a movie, or played a game, or bought a book, or *something* that made you go, afterwards, "fuck, that was a waste of $X. I wish I had that back."

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    6. Re:Not a Loss by nametaken · · Score: 1

      I'll tell you what else needs to be said yet again... I'm fucking embarrassed by the people who represent me.

      I'm sorry Canada, please disregard what he said.

    7. Re:Not a Loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stole a car once. Hey it's not like I was gonna buy it anyway, right? I mean, I usually walk everywhere, not to mention I just don't like cars. That makes it OK. right?

    8. Re:Not a Loss by HockeyPuck · · Score: 1

      So are you advocating that you should only have to pay for a movie if you like it?

      If you don't want to find out if a game sucks by buying it, then wait for someone else to buy it, read their review(s) and then buy it based upon that. What gives you the privilege or right to determine that you should have the option to pay for something. Honestly, if you (or someone you are with in the case of movie/game rentals) doesn't want to pay for the game/movie then you have no right to be able to watch it.

      While I'm not a fan of rewarding crap products, you should do this by not buying them. Not by not buying them but using them anyhow. How is this any different from you walking into a supermarket and saying, "this steak isn't worth $12, I'm going to shoplift it and eat it anyhow."

    9. Re:Not a Loss by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      To me, the best pro-piracy argument is it allows people to not reward people for making shit products. If piracy wasn't available, I'd have to pay $60 to find out that new game is absolute ass-nuggets, I'd have to pay at least $10 to see a movie in the theatres to know it was crap, not including travel time, waiting time, concessions, etc. Why should someone benefit from my enforced inability to check the quality of their product before I shell out full price?

      There is this thing call the internet that allows you to search for and find reviews of games, movies, and just about anything else you want.

    10. Re:Not a Loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, let me tell you something...learn to read reviews. You do not need to buy something to have an idea as to whether or not it's absolute ass-nuggets, as there are plenty of services that will at least give you an idea before you buy. And in the world of games, demos are widely available.

      Sorry, but I just can't blame the companies for your inability to avail yourself of your options.

      Also, I think going to see the most awesome movie ever is a rip-off, but that's me.

    11. Re:Not a Loss by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      To me, the best pro-piracy argument is it allows people to not reward people for making shit products. If piracy wasn't available, I'd have to pay $60 to find out that new game is absolute ass-nuggets,

      This is why I love game demos on the 360. Finally, on a console! I've loved them for years on the PC for this very reason -- it's as good as piracy without the hassle. Game companies are leery of demos for the same reason -- if a game is shit, the demo is the fart, the warning stench. Sturegon's Law holds true for many things and it seems like over 90% of games are total shit. If a company won't release a demo, it either means their game is so shitty they wouldn't dare or so awesome they don't care. As I recall, Oblivion didn't have a 360 demo and GTAIV didn't. Both games are 10/10 on the system so I guess they didn't think it worth the effort.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    12. Re:Not a Loss by SomeJoel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How is this any different from you walking into a supermarket and saying, "this steak isn't worth $12, I'm going to shoplift it and eat it anyhow."

      Well, in that case, nobody else is able to pay for and eat the $12 steak. Copying a movie does not reduce anyone else's ability to pay for the same movie.

      --
      <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
    13. Re:Not a Loss by McBeer · · Score: 1

      If piracy wasn't available, I'd have to pay $60 to find out that new game is absolute ass-nuggets, I'd have to pay at least $10 to see a movie in the theatres to know it was crap

       
      Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure they invented demos/trailers/reviews for that purpose. Most games still have demos, every movie has a trailer, and everything gets reviewed. There are plenty of legal ways to try before you buy.

      --
      Hikery.net - The best hiking site ever. Made by yours truly.
    14. Re:Not a Loss by fooslacker · · Score: 1

      To me, the best pro-piracy argument is it allows people to not reward people for making shit products.

      First let me say that I have no use for the studios and I'm glad piracy is driving them out of an old and broken robber-baron business model. Additionally I think they produce 95% worthless crap. That said your argument is nonsensical. When talking about physical products you have no guarantee of quality either yet we don't allow you to steal and then decide whether or not to pay for it. What you do have is reviews and consumer reports. The same holds true for entertainment media.

      I don't really believe there is a good ethical argument for piracy but I can't wait to support the first set of media producers that realize they don't need the studios anymore and start using the piracy distribution channels to drive profits rather than desperately clinging to an old and outdated business model that relies on inefficient distribution and high barriers to entry to allow middle men to profit. I want to get my art directly from the artist rather than something homogenized by a risk management entity in the middle and I'm willing to pay for it. What's going to be more interesting is when the content producers figure out how to give away the digital content to drive money in other areas. I believe the artists that accomplish that are going to be the big winners. Just because something has always been done one way is not a reason to continue doing it that way and digital distribution is going to provide the chance for some innovative artists to break away from the age old plantation model used by the studios.

    15. Re:Not a Loss by gbarules2999 · · Score: 1

      If it's shit, you're not going to watch/play/listen to it. You're going to delete it. Simple as that.

    16. Re:Not a Loss by Talderas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To me, the best pro-piracy argument is it allows people to not reward people for making shit products. If piracy wasn't available, I'd have to pay $60 to find out that new game is absolute ass-nuggets, I'd have to pay at least $10 to see a movie in the theatres to know it was crap, not including travel time, waiting time, concessions, etc. Why should someone benefit from my enforced inability to check the quality of their product before I shell out full price? You can't tell me you've never watched a movie, or played a game, or bought a book, or *something* that made you go, afterwards, "fuck, that was a waste of $X. I wish I had that back."

      That's the free market, you vote with your dollars. If a company burns you with a shit product, stop buying their products.

      People like you constantly try to come up with reasons and justifications for breaking the law rather than attempting to sway the minds of people to get the law changed. Civil disobedience only works when there's an audience. Frankly your audience is just yourselves and individuals who you aren't going to sway.

      Oh, but the MPAA and RIAA don't pay the artists crap for producing their crap so I'm just going to pirate the movie and music.
      Oh, the software has a demo, but I don't want to bother with that, I'm just going to pirate the full version.
      Oh, the computer game has a demo and tons of review, but I don't want to spend time reading the reviews or trying the demo, so I'm just going to pirate the full game instead.

      Let me guess, you agree that I should be able to take your money and distribute it however I please because I know how to better spend your money than you?

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    17. Re:Not a Loss by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      So those loss calculations are wrong

      You have a flawed argument. Numbers out of thin air != calculations.

    18. Re:Not a Loss by Nekomusume · · Score: 1

      Books are a bad example - most sellers will accept returns if you haven't damaged them.

      Games, on the other hand, are an insanely stupid thing to buy without having tried first. Games aren't worse the cost to me unless I'll still be playing it in a year's time, and most of them are lucky to hold my interest for a week.

    19. Re:Not a Loss by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      There are major gaps on both sides of the issue.

      One download is NOT one lost sale. I can tell you that right now because I know people who download things like 3D Studio Max, AutoCAD, and other pricey titles who I know cannot afford to pay for them. Even with music or games, which cost considerably less, if you decided to never buy another CD ever again and went with downloading them, just how how many of those gigabytes of mp3s would you have been able to buy if you had no choice but to pay the rates? Even if you could claim full losses from these people, what is that? Maybe 200 dollars a year or something?

      On the other hand, there is a point to be made that *someone* has to pay for this stuff. Songs do not write, perform, engineer and then distribute themselves. There is some minimum that you need in order to have a healthy industry. The question is, does instant availability of the tracks for free mean that it will eventually become impossible to garner that bare minimum cost?

      At the moment, we still have rich music execs and top artists running around with their enormous earnings. It's pretty clear that we have not approached that minimum point yet. The question is whether that point will be reached as soon as the world becomes saturated with people who are knowledgeable about downloading and the older people pass away. I think the industry realizes that even though they are not really in big trouble now, the future is not too bright for them if they stay on the same road.

      Nothing is going to stop downloads at this point. No one wants to go back to spending all their money on tracks marketed in the old fashioned way where you had to pay for a full album of tracks to get one song. I think its clear that there needs to be some sort of new angle, or we are going to have something of a crisis as time marches on. I really believe that if downloader owe anything anything, they at least owe some thought about how they can work on alternative ways to support their favorite and up and coming artists.

    20. Re:Not a Loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple: wait and rent, or buy used.

    21. Re:Not a Loss by FredFredrickson · · Score: 1

      That said your argument is nonsensical. When talking about physical products you have no guarantee of quality either yet we don't allow you to steal and then decide whether or not to pay for it. What you do have is reviews and consumer reports. The same holds true for entertainment media.

      So, like, walmart doesn't let you return items you didn't like? Wait a second ..

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    22. Re:Not a Loss by kitsunewarlock · · Score: 1

      I've never regretted a purchase since I just pirate everything.
      Nah, I'm joking. I'm a tabletop gamer and supporter of my favorite industry, so yes...all too often I regret my purchases.

      --
      Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
    23. Re:Not a Loss by dc29A · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is this thing call the internet that allows you to search for and find reviews of games, movies, and just about anything else you want.

      Yes because reviews are *NEVER* biased. How many stories we get regularly that X game site/magazine reviews are paid by the game publisher? Or how many reviews are forced to make a steaming shitpile of a game look good because game publisher would than withdraw ad funding (basically being bullied into good reviews)?

      When I can take a game/CD/DVD I bought and bring it back to the store for refund because it's a steaming pile of male cow feces, then I will never *EVER* download illegally anything.

    24. Re:Not a Loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You my friend are very confused. The MPAA would calculate the value of their losses at $250,000 x $1,000,000 = $2,500,000,000,000.

      In their minds that becomes the value of their garbage because you helped to enable at least some of the other 999,999 people to download.

      The true fuel of the world is greed. Society will continue towards the stone ages until it ends.

    25. Re:Not a Loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In theory, I agree with you. In practice, I think you're off your rocker.

      Yes, certainly, a pirated item would not necessarily been a purchased item otherwise. Similarly, a pirated item might influence a purchase of that item that might not have been made otherwise.

      That said, if you go to a movie theater and hate your movie, you can go and talk to the manager before it's finished and ask for your money back. You can't do this with games, but you can download a demo of the game to try first. If you're buying a book, you can probably read some pages first. In any other product instance, you can either try out the product for free or for cheap (for items such as paint) or return items if they don't do what they say they will.

      Pirating items so that you can "test out their quality" isn't a good reason to do so. If you want to sample something before hand, go through the right channels to do so.

    26. Re:Not a Loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are absolutely right. One only need look at the whole fiasco with Gamespot, Kane & Lynch and Jeff Gerstmann to see just how corrupt these publications are.

      I like MobyGames for game reviews. They present generally in-depth reviews by actual gamers, you can submit your own reviews and they provide review scores given by various "official" publications. The only drawback is it can sometimes take a while before a review is submitted for a new game, depending on how popular it is.

    27. Re:Not a Loss by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Reviewers tend to be idiots, unfortunately.

      Don't believe me? Rob Smith, who spent quite a bit of time as PC Gamer's EIC, actually called Daikatana "game of the year for 1999". That's how idiotic they are -- Daikatana wasn't even released until mid-2000. You want me to spend my money based on what someone like THAT says?

      --
      It's been a long time.
    28. Re:Not a Loss by agbinfo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apologies accepted but in the future, please restrain this retard.

    29. Re:Not a Loss by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      So pirating is Karma's way of getting revenge on all of those producers that would have used marketing to chump people into giving up hard earned money for inferior products?

      I LIKE IT!

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    30. Re:Not a Loss by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      You made sure the car was parked in the exact spot it was in before I left, in the exact condition, so it was if my car had never been touched?

      I'm not really sure if I'm mad or not. I mean, anything I would otherwise be mad about isn't covered by your joyride...

      --
      It's been a long time.
    31. Re:Not a Loss by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      One of the things I love about tabletop gaming is that they have saner ideas about "intellectual property". Since games basically can't be copyrighted*, they've had to resort to building reputations for quality based on (trademarked) game lines, publisher names, or designer names.. This has succeeded beyond anything we could hope for, and we have lots and lots of high quality games, available at a price not terribly much higher than the cost of making them.

      *a particular expression of the rules can, but not the rules themselves - that would be like copyrighting a book plot, and thankfully the courts have been clear on this for more than a generation.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    32. Re:Not a Loss by easyTree · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is this thing call the internet that allows you to search for and find reviews of games, movies, and just about anything else you want, written by people who were paid to write favourable reviews.

      Time to roll out the tired, old 'there, fixed that for you' meme, once again...

    33. Re:Not a Loss by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Companies can front-load; i.e. put 30% of their effort/resources into the demo, even though it's only 5% the length of the game...

      If each game implemented some common api allowing part of a game to be randomly selected and packaged-up into a demo, such that different people get to play different parts, there'd be less scope for gaming the system.

    34. Re:Not a Loss by Vexorian · · Score: 1

      How many would have bought the movie/game if you could NOT download it? I know of plenty of people that download games/movies because they don't believe they are worth it to buy them.

      I don't think removing piracy would magically make these games/movies worth buying...

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    35. Re:Not a Loss by easyTree · · Score: 1

      I stole a car once. Hey it's not like I was gonna buy it anyway, right? I mean, I usually walk everywhere, not to mention I just don't like cars. That makes it OK. right?

      <embedded mini-ask slashdot>
      How can we arrange it such that whenever attempts to imply that copying something deprives the 'owner' of their copy, they receive an electric shock?
      </embedded mini-ask slashdot>

    36. Re:Not a Loss by easyTree · · Score: 1

      uhh, 'whenever someone attempts to...'

    37. Re:Not a Loss by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      When I can take a game/CD/DVD I bought and bring it back to the store for refund because it's a steaming pile of male cow feces, then I will never *EVER* download illegally anything

      You say that now, but it's an excuse you use to make yourself feel better. Copy Right Infringment feels much better when you give yourself a glorified moral highground to be traveling. Much better then the reality that you're just cheap and like free crap (As most of us do). Even wit hthat policy, you'd still download for free.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    38. Re:Not a Loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask for your money back. I've gotten my money back for crappy movies before. Just walk out in the middle or whenever and demand your money back. If you stay til the end, though, how bad could it have been? You would be surprised (apparently) how many vendors don't actually want to piss of their customers by selling crappy products. Most of them will "make it right" if you bring the issue to their attention. NB: Gamestop doesn't count, they can suck a bag of dicks, customer service-wise.

    39. Re:Not a Loss by gilgongo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      you can't know what the net effect is of non-paid non-authorized downloads

      Here's a true story:

      When my son was 6, his friends showed him an Indiana Jones Lego kit and he really liked it. After a while I realised he'd never seen the films and without much thought I downloaded one and showed it to him just to see what he thought (he's fickle). He loved it. So much so that we've probably spend about $200 on Indie merchandising of various kinds in the last 18 months, and still buying. He may never had got to that level had he not seen the film, and I may well not have been bothered to buy/rent it for him.

      Of course, the marketing behemoth of Indian Jones Inc, may well have hoovered him up eventually, but who's to say he might not have gone for something else, something smaller - Japanimation or whatever?

      --
      "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
    40. Re:Not a Loss by fooslacker · · Score: 1

      That said your argument is nonsensical. When talking about physical products you have no guarantee of quality either yet we don't allow you to steal and then decide whether or not to pay for it. What you do have is reviews and consumer reports. The same holds true for entertainment media.

      So, like, walmart doesn't let you return items you didn't like? Wait a second ..

      First your analogy is a bit off because you're talking about a retail reseller and not the manufacturer of goods. But allowing that little logical shift, in general when talking about a retail reseller it depends on the item. If it can't be repackaged and resold then no they don't let you. Even if they do it's not really a given it's more of a specific retailer policy which is put in place because retailers don't really sell items they sell access to items that they have already bought from manufacturers. When they choose to allow returns that don't support reselling they have more interest in you using their access channel than someone else's. This part of the distribution chain disappears (or more accurately is minimized) as you move to a more efficient online delivery model.

      With respect to manufacturers it usually requires a manufacturing defect before it can be returned. Unfortunately a crappy quality product is not considered a manufacturing defect.

    41. Re:Not a Loss by fooslacker · · Score: 1

      I should have added that if you want to buy DRMed crippled media that can be returned and deactivated during the time period specified as return time then maybe you have an argument but I would prefer to pay less per item and accept the risk myself while getting a fully functioning product that I can control how it is used once I own it.

    42. Re:Not a Loss by gilgongo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People like you constantly try to come up with reasons and justifications for breaking the law rather than attempting to sway the minds of people to get the law changed. Civil disobedience only works when there's an audience. Frankly your audience is just yourselves and individuals who you aren't going to sway.

      Oh, but the MPAA and RIAA don't pay the artists crap for producing their crap so I'm just going to pirate the movie and music.
      Oh, the software has a demo, but I don't want to bother with that, I'm just going to pirate the full version.
      Oh, the computer game has a demo and tons of review, but I don't want to spend time reading the reviews or trying the demo, so I'm just going to pirate the full game instead.

      Let me guess, you agree that I should be able to take your money and distribute it however I please because I know how to better spend your money than you?

      That doesn't make any sense. The whole point here is that there IS an audience - it's the *AA. If they weren't feeling the pain, they wouldn't be doing what they're doing. The "Oh, but..." stuff you list is EXACTLY how the law will get changed eventually, because that's how modern democratic societies work. Sure the *AA will kick and scream, but once the tide has turned, it's over.

      By 2100, copyright as we know it will have been abolished. That sounds impossible, but it's going to happen.

      --
      "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
    43. Re:Not a Loss by init100 · · Score: 1

      How many would have bought the movie/game if you could NOT download it?

      I don't pirate games, I buy them. But that also means that I'm very picky about what I buy, which means that I'll only buy such games that I'm fairly certain will be a lot of fun to me. If I would pirate games instead, this cost/benefit calculation would go out the window, and I could also download the less certain cases, i.e. games that could be fun, but just as likely could be pure crap.

    44. Re:Not a Loss by vivaelamor · · Score: 1

      I worry for you, I really do. I can imagine you in a flower shop shouting at people for smelling the merchandise.

    45. Re:Not a Loss by bill_kress · · Score: 1

      There are a few huge problems with the free market theories. Basically free-market is broke because of them.

      One is monopoly. If someone holds a monopoly on the one thing you want, they can charge any amount for it. If you have other sources, great! But how many other sources do you have for the new Star Trek movie? Well, actually you have 1, piracy. So in this case, piracy almost makes free-market better because it gives the vendors a reason to try.

      Second is the too many idiots problem. If Wal-mart destroys civilizations and murders children and kittens, you not buying from them isn't going to effect their sails one iota. Hell, a million people deciding to join a nation-wide movement to boycott wal-mart would probably just increase their sales due to the publicity. Too many idiots won't look into WHY you are boycotting them even if you put it right in front of their faces.

      The ideal "free-market" is as much a religion as Christianity. People have faith it will work because they like the way it sounds. It sounds like being ruthless and cheap is "altruistic".

      It barely holds together if you include well thought-out regulation and controls--but in general it's broken.

      Still, not sure there is a better way to do it :(

    46. Re:Not a Loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a friend hadn't bought my ticket, I wouldn't have watched it. But to my friend, it was worth the price because we were seeing it together. That's the difference. He was getting a value out of it separate to the value of the movie.

      What addition value did your friend get that was worth 2x the cost of the ticket?

    47. Re:Not a Loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wouldn't be worth it to download it either. Last time I checked, there was a CAM and a TS up.

      Wake me up when there is an R5 that has FM quality audio.

      - AC

    48. Re:Not a Loss by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      What gives you the privilege or right to determine that you should have the option to pay for something.

      And the producer has no right to my money for making a shit product. If there's a way to properly preview something (not movie previews, those are obviously just marketing tools), such as a demo, then fine, it becomes my duty to check the demo, establish an opinion of the product, and then purchase or not. But there's not really a way to demo a movie that's in theatres. I'd consider renting a movie demoing it, but you can't do that if it's a brand new movie. The majority of games for PC don't have demos, and you can't return them if you don't like them. Console games, you can conceivably rent, if the store decides they might like to carry it, but for a more esoteric title, with limited appeal, they're not going to waste the shelf space.

      I'm Canadian, I can't use netflix, gamefly, or Hulu. I don't have a problem with rewarding someone who's done good work, but why reward a cash grab because the system's set up in such a way that if I don't have mainstream tastes, I don't get to try anything.

      Furthermore, there's systems out there where people allow people to use their stuff for free, and then, if they like it, donations are accepted to give the developer an income stream. I realize, not reasonable for a multi-million dollar project, or at least, not at this time, but there ARE systems where you get the right to use something without paying, on the notion that if you appriciate it, you will donate.

      Addressing your steak argument, how's this? Every movie and game is slightly different. There is absolutely no way to tell in advance if you're sure to like something. I've loathed movies that on paper should have been amazing. I've liked things that I probably should have hated. A steak is the same pretty much every time. You know what you're getting, you know if it's worth it to you. The situations are not the same in the slightest.

      Now, finally, reading reviews. Again, my tastes differ from others. How do I know that just because someone says that a game's controls are horrifically awkward, I won't be able to cope with them? Bad dialog? Hard to know. Tastes are subjective, and reviews are flawed. There's only two sources I trust with game recommendations. Yahtzee from Zero Punctuation, and the guys at Penny Arcade. Yet since neither are dedicated sources, they hardly cover the gamut of releases. I'm lucky if they cover even 5% of the releases. Every other source, I've disagreed majorly with either to the quality or lack thereof in a title. Again, I'd prefer to have the opportunity to actually form my own opinion. I don't see how this can possibly seem unreasonable to you.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    49. Re:Not a Loss by Dr.+Hellno · · Score: 1

      it's cool, guy. You're still invited to our birthday party.

    50. Re:Not a Loss by Dr.+Hellno · · Score: 1

      I agree that someone smarter than you should be able to take a portion of my money and distribute it for the betterment of society, as overseen by me with the help of the national media. To believe otherwise is to believe in anarchy

    51. Re:Not a Loss by Dr.+Hellno · · Score: 1

      Yep that makes it totally cool. You've parsed the philosophy perfectly.

    52. Re:Not a Loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn straight. The movie should have come with a disclaimer "This movie was NOT directed by James Cameron"

      I have been waiting for the post-judgement day film for so long and I feel totally let down.

    53. Re:Not a Loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read that as time travel and was wondering what you were keeping from us.

    54. Re:Not a Loss by powerlord · · Score: 1

      We should at least be willing to at least listen to what he has to say ... does anyone have a torrent for his speech? :P

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    55. Re:Not a Loss by HydroPhonic · · Score: 1

      You can't tell me you've never watched a movie, or played a game, or bought a book, or *something* that made you go, afterwards, "fuck, that was a waste of $X. I wish I had that back."

      Mostly, it's not the $X that I wish I had back. It's the time I spent consuming the drivel.

    56. Re:Not a Loss by anghelcovici · · Score: 1

      So I assume that each time you've downloaded a movie/game and you liked it you run to the store and payed for it?

    57. Re:Not a Loss by fastest+fascist · · Score: 1

      Theft 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny. Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. (quoted from dictionary.com)

    58. Re:Not a Loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone download a movie, game or song doesn't mean they wouldn't have paid for it if they could. So your comment has no relevence.

    59. Re:Not a Loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then don't play the fucking games or watch the movies. How hard is that? You make it sound like "getting ripped off" and "breaking the law" are the only two available options, which is clearly a faulty assumption.

    60. Re:Not a Loss by dc29A · · Score: 1

      You say that now, but it's an excuse you use to make yourself feel better. Copy Right Infringment feels much better when you give yourself a glorified moral highground to be traveling. Much better then the reality that you're just cheap and like free crap (As most of us do). Even wit hthat policy, you'd still download for free.

      And you know that I am a freeloader because ...

      I have no problem in supporting artists/movies/game studios that put out quality stuff. I have problem supporting shit like EA that installs root kits and fucks up my system with their own CD drive hooks and whatnot. Or when I buy their game and single player version doesn't work because their DRM is a buggy piece of monkey feces.

      Back in the 90s I bought many CDs for one song, lack of radio play, no real way of discovering the band. That's no longer the case, thanks to downloads.

      In Canada I have 10 days or so to return my Viewsonic 26' monitor because it's a piece of shit, why can't I return my System of a Down CD because it's a piece of shit? Or my digital download of Hellgate London that doesn't work in single player because of DRM issues?

      PS: I own 700+ music CDs, 150+ DVDs and over 75 games.

    61. Re:Not a Loss by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Actually, some people get practically all their food for free by buying it in a supermarket and then mailing the food company that they're not satisfied by the product for reason X, and get a full refund. The flaw with that approach is that if you do it for a family of 4-5 it's pretty much a full-time job.

      So back to movies, perhaps you should be entitled to a refund if you didn't like it. I mean if it works for food..

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    62. Re:Not a Loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Safeway in Canada allows you to return say the carcass of a turkey that tasted horrible after it was consumed. So long as you have the receipt.

      You'll have a lot harder time returning that video game that's been opened.

      On the other side of that though, you can walk out of a movie and get a refund because it's horrible. Although I'd bet there is a "point of no return".

    63. Re:Not a Loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and even if it was, apparently the american economy has saved itself $58 billion in useless expenses!

      Go people!

    64. Re:Not a Loss by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      Well, I always spit the steak back out and put back in the wrapper before I return it. That's how I stay so svelt.

      If you ever wanted to know where chopped steak comes from, now you know.

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    65. Re:Not a Loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By 2100, copyright as we know it will have been abolished. That sounds impossible, but it's going to happen.

      This statement can best be summed up as an Argument to the Future http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#future

    66. Re:Not a Loss by gilgongo · · Score: 1

      By 2100, copyright as we know it will have been abolished. That sounds impossible, but it's going to happen.

      This statement can best be summed up as an Argument to the Future http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#future

      Nope. It's called "a prediction based on current evidence." By your measure, all scientific theories until proven would be arguments to the future. If I were making an argument to the future I would be saying that X is not happening now, and you can't see any evidence of it happening yet, but it will happen in the future because I believe it should do because I think that's the right way it should happen.

      There is, I hope you will see, rather a large difference.

      --
      "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
  4. American Imperialsm w/ Entertainment Media? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't believe he admitted it. "After all, US copyright-based industries continue to be one of America's largest and fastest-growing economic sectors."

    Next thing you know he'll say, "And if they won't buy our opium, we will sail our ironclads right into their harbours and open up their markets, whether they like it or not."

    1. Re:American Imperialsm w/ Entertainment Media? by zippyspringboard · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I can't believe he admitted it. "After all, US copyright-based industries continue to be one of America's largest and fastest-growing economic sectors."

      Next thing you know he'll say, "And if they won't buy our opium, we will sail our ironclads right into their harbours and open up their markets, whether they like it or not."

      Bingo! I couldn't agree more.

    2. Re:American Imperialsm w/ Entertainment Media? by The+Empiricist · · Score: 0, Troll

      I can't believe he admitted it. "After all, US copyright-based industries continue to be one of America's largest and fastest-growing economic sectors."

      Why can't you believe that he "admitted" that it is in the economic interests of the United States to ensure that its copyright-based industries continue to develop? He is a Senator. His job is to identify and protect the interests of the citizens of the United States. That is what all legislators are supposed to do. There is a lot of debate as to what those interests are and how to protect them, but it would seem silly to sponsor legislation and then pretend that no one's interests are being protected.

      What is sad is how frequently remarks made by politicians are isolated and magnified to overly simplify their positions. In those same set of remarks, Senator Hatch talks about the problem of orphan works:

      I also continue to be very active on passing orphan works legislation.

      Last year, the Senate unanimously passed bipartisan legislation to encourage the use of orphan works - works that may be protected by copyright but whose owners cannot be identified or located. Countless artistic creations - books, photos, paintings and music - around the country are effectively locked away and unavailable for the general public to enjoy because the owner of the copyright for the work is unknown.

      Unfortunately, it often isn't easy to identify or find these owners of copyrighted work. To make matters worse, many are discouraged or reluctant to use these works out of fear of being sued should the owner eventually step forward.

      For years, I have been working with industry stakeholders and copyright experts, including Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, to pass orphan works legislation. The bill seeks to unite users and copyright owners, and to ensure that copyright owners are compensated for the use of their works. I couldn't agree more with Register Peters when she said, "A solution to the orphan works problem is overdue and the pending legislation is both fair and responsible."

      You may not agree with every position that the Senator makes, but an interpretation of his positions that is driven by something more than just sound-bites shows that he is interested in protecting more than just the interests of copyright owners. Finding the best ways of protecting the interests of copyright owners, content producers, distributors, consumers, technological innovators, etc. is a challenging task. Oversimplification of the issues based on the perspective of one interest group doesn't make the task any easier.

    3. Re:American Imperialsm w/ Entertainment Media? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! "Me too!" gets modded insightful. 'salright, I agree with the GP also. Give me points, dammit!

    4. Re:American Imperialsm w/ Entertainment Media? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! "Me too!" gets modded insightful. 'salright, I agree with the GP also. Give me points, dammit!

      You might get +1 Funny. You made me laugh (especially since I was thinking the same thing).

    5. Re:American Imperialsm w/ Entertainment Media? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I can't believe he admitted it. "After all, US copyright-based industries continue to be one of America's largest and fastest-growing economic sectors."

      Next thing you know he'll say, "And if they won't buy our opium, we will sail our ironclads right into their harbours and open up their markets, whether they like it or not."

      +1 for the Opium Wars reference. Most people don't realize jolly old England went to war to sell its drugs and buy its tea.

      But Hatch is right as well. All America really has these days is its intellectual property rights. We design and engineer a product here, then we send it over to China to make it for us. Or we design and engineer a pop singer, and have China press copies of their DVDs and CDs for us. China is bad enough as it is - if there were no IP laws at all (or whatever anarchistic fantasy world the Pirate Bay people are living it), America's economy would go belly-up.

      Accelerando by Charlie Strauss is a great work of fiction, and the early bit of the book argues this point very well, though from the opposite point of view (the main character argues we should move to a total freedom hippie society).

    6. Re:American Imperialsm w/ Entertainment Media? by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Interesting

      He's more right than he probably knows. Even the design and engineering seem to be on a rapid decline, leaving copyright law and patent portfolios the only remaining American stronghold. People don't seem to grasp that it isn't sustainable. When the only thing you're left with is lawyers, you have a very serious problem.

    7. Re:American Imperialsm w/ Entertainment Media? by Steauengeglase · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh, I've got it. We'll push the idea of futures in the entertainment market. Hatch, being a Republican, will break his neck trying to push for that kind of deregulation. After 6 years of people blowing countless billion on potential albums and movies the entire market implodes. Two birds with one stone.

    8. Re:American Imperialsm w/ Entertainment Media? by QuoteMstr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More specifically, the problem with intangible goods is that they only have the value because the law creates an artificial scarcity. The only incentive for a foreign nation to respect the legal framework that makes our intangible goods scarce is the threat of reprisal. This reprisal can come in the form of a trade barrier, but when we're left with only intangible exports, the threat of a trade barrier really has no teeth.

      The other reprisal, of course, is military. I'm deeply afraid that we'll end up using force to bully other nations into giving our intangible goods value. We all know how that game ends.

    9. Re:American Imperialsm w/ Entertainment Media? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why can't you believe that he "admitted" that it is in the economic interests of the United States to ensure that its copyright-based industries continue to develop? He is a Senator. His job is to identify and protect the interests of the citizens of the United States.

      See here's where the problem lies.

      Copyrights aren't owned by citizens with short lifespans anymore.

      Do not kid yourself. They are not looking out for the citizens interests, they are looking out for the interests of "Corporate Amerika".

      Corporations are not beholden to anyone other than the stock holders and even then they typically have no moral compass.

      They lobby to protect their interests, legislate to preserve antiquated business models, and continue to try and apply physical property rights to digital information.

      Information which can be perfectly duplicated with no detriment to the original source. Supply and Demand does not apply when supply is effectively infinite.

      I try to put myself in the shoes of the "content owner", but really have a hard time of it. Throughout antiquity, musicians and artists have been paid either by private parties commissioning work, or through public performance. Its only been a fairly recent development (last 100-200 years) that artists could expect to produce for a period of time and then live off the royalties or have their music be a source of perpetual income. Frankly I think copyrights have gotten out of hand. The idea that someone owns a string of notes in perpetuity is absurd. Its like a patent on a business model.

    10. Re:American Imperialsm w/ Entertainment Media? by cHALiTO · · Score: 0, Redundant

      How come parent hasn't been modded up into the stratosphere yet?

      --
      "Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
    11. Re:American Imperialsm w/ Entertainment Media? by Vexinator · · Score: 1

      There are FOUR LIGHTS!

      --
      "Be afraid to die until you have won some victory for humanity" -Horace Mann
    12. Re:American Imperialsm w/ Entertainment Media? by jcnnghm · · Score: 1

      It's not just entertainment media stupid. Software and hardware design are also copyright-based industries. We have to protect the creation of intellectual property, as we already opened our borders to let the manufacture of physical property occur elsewhere without excessive tariffs.

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    13. Re:American Imperialsm w/ Entertainment Media? by AcidPenguin9873 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      they only have the value because the law creates an artificial scarcity.

      They have value, but the entire value (and cost) is in the creation of the first instance of that thing. Every subsequent instance (copy) can be made for $0 cost. Because of that, it's nearly impossible to make a profit by amortizing the cost of creating that thing over the sale of multiple instances of that thing. IP law attempts to create artificial scarcity (prohibiting $0 copies) such that a person or company can amortize the creation cost over multiple sales, but we are seeing that artificial scarcity fail time and time again.

      The problem with this whole scheme is: what happens when a company can no longer cover the cost of creation of the first instance of that thing (i.e., paying the creator or designer a reasonable salary or wage)? The answer is that we lose that thing from having been created. Some sort of new business model needs to be developed to support profitable creation of non-tangible goods. IP/Copyright law isn't cutting it.

    14. Re:American Imperialsm w/ Entertainment Media? by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      I think SCO might disagree with you, oh wait....

    15. Re:American Imperialsm w/ Entertainment Media? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Entertainment is the second largest export from the United States after food, and has been for at least a decade. It's all well and good to laugh about it, but at the same time, our economy is heavily dependent on entertainment, and *that* is likely the biggest motivator of the government to protect it, more than corporate lobbying.

    16. Re:American Imperialsm w/ Entertainment Media? by AcidPenguin9873 · · Score: 1

      Mods: -1 Flamebait is not a disagree mod. This post is not inflammatory, nor a troll, nor stating incorrect facts, it's merely stating an unpopular opinion. I can't see how anything in this post is offensive; even the China comments aren't any worse than other stuff I've seen here. As a Slashdotter, your options are to mod up response posts which disagree with it, or post a disagree response yourself.

      I for one agree with this post and the AC below it - entertainment is a big part of the economy, and depends in large part on copyright-controlled distribution (i.e., artificial scarcity) for profit.

    17. Re:American Imperialsm w/ Entertainment Media? by bug1 · · Score: 1

      HAHA, you smarty pants and your thinking industries, when will you learn.

      Over hear in Australia, our industries are based on digging up rocks, and crushing them, then we sell the special stuff in the rocks and getem ipod.

      We dont get no recessions.

    18. Re:American Imperialsm w/ Entertainment Media? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lawyers and and army Soldiers in inforce the law, sounds like ancient Rome....

    19. Re:American Imperialsm w/ Entertainment Media? by gilgoomesh · · Score: 1

      Corporations are not beholden to anyone other than the stock holders and even then they typically have no moral compass.

      I've always considered this argument to be complete B.S.

      Corporations have the morality of every individual that comprises them. If corporations act immorally, it's because the people that comprise them are immoral.

      People claim: "it was my job" or "everyone else was doing it" or "I had a responsibility to my stock holders". This is just mob-mentality, passing the buck and immoral greed.

      We need to stop claiming that corporations are these artificially intelligent puppet-masters that uncontrollably force their employees to do their evil bidding. It only furthers the mental illness people foster that lets them think their evil actions are not their fault.

    20. Re:American Imperialsm w/ Entertainment Media? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! An outdated business model, coupled with 0 scarcity is exactly what is dethroning the software industry moguls. Some types of software and content explicitly allow reproduction. This puts those who want artificial scarcity into a panic. Songs should have a time duration, but about 20 years. 1 Generation. Same with books. Patents should last 5 years. You get to make it for 5 years. After that, someone else gets a turn. Entire generations should not have to die off waiting to improve your idea. Business methods and math not patentable.

    21. Re:American Imperialsm w/ Entertainment Media? by rdebath · · Score: 1

      IP law attempts to create artificial scarcity (prohibiting $0 copies) such that a person or company can amortize the creation cost over multiple sales, but we are seeing that artificial scarcity fail time and time again.

      IP law (both sorts) has NEVER tried to do this, the original law makers were not stupid.

      IP law is designed to work in the environment where the cost to copy a single item is rather high but it can be reduced a lot by investing a large amount of cash into a huge expensive mass copying machine. It's designed to be used against companies that already have this massive investment and want to screw the little guy.

      In that environment it works well. Unfortunately the big companies have succeeded in seriously reducing the cost of those mass copying machines and screwed themselves instead. I have no sympathy, I saw this coming with the Virgin megastore in London got a CD duplicator behind a glass wall in their basement and the book stores have just lost their footing on the same slippery slope.

      The artists are in caught in the middle; hopefully they can make reasonable money nowadays by going directly to the public via the internet.

    22. Re:American Imperialsm w/ Entertainment Media? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Mods: -1 Flamebait is not a disagree mod.

      Yeah, no kidding. And it's not like I was *endorsing* our current system or anything, just pointing out that the American economy really is built on nothing but IP these days.

      While I agree with everyone else the Pirate Bay trial was a fiasco, that doesn't mean that a world with no IP laws would necessarily be any better than our current one.

    23. Re:American Imperialsm w/ Entertainment Media? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the only thing you're left with is lawyers, you have a very serious problem.

      It worked for SCO.

    24. Re:American Imperialsm w/ Entertainment Media? by intheshelter · · Score: 1

      "Corporations have the morality of every individual that comprises them. If corporations act immorally, it's because the people that comprise them are immoral."

      -Bull!! You're telling me the rank and file employees of Enron, Worldcom, etc. are immoral? Isn't it more likely that they had NO knowledge of nor power over most decisions in the company, and if they did they probably would have been booted out the door if they put up any resistance to their upper management decisions?

    25. Re:American Imperialsm w/ Entertainment Media? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a nice game of chess?

  5. makes me proud to be a canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lets face it,

    If as a society you are pissing off a modern US Republican, you have to be doing something right.

    1. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we could get Hulu.com and the like in Canada, maybe we wouldn't have to d/l all the content in other ways for shows we can't get here easily...hmmm

    2. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by Faulkner39 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doing something right would piss off a US Democrat, doing something left would get you mad mod points on slashdot.

    3. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by cwAllenPoole · · Score: 1

      I suppose that we have forgotten that there are no Libertarian Democrats?

      --
      http://www.allen-poole.com/
    4. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      If as a society you are pissing off a modern US Republican, you have to be doing something right.

      (waits for someone to flame or flamebait about muslim extremists...)

    5. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by qortra · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm no Republican, and I happen to hate the party. But, I do find it amazing that an AC making a fairly uninteresting anti-Republican comment can be modded up so quickly. Are you people so anxious to show off our political viewpoint? Are you not aware that liberals have been just as guilty of courting the RIAA and MPAA and conservatives? Who can remember Senator Disney?

    6. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      If as a society you are pissing off a modern US Republican, you have to be doing something right.

      Orrin Hatch is about as 'modern' a Republican as Abraham Lincoln. IIRC, Orrin used to crib off Abe's homework.

      Dinosaur? Absolutely.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    7. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by time$lice · · Score: 1

      The one day I don't have mod points to mod this down. This is obvious flamebait or a troll. Take your pick. Maybe even possibly funny with the whole "right" comment but not insightful.

    8. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by Uberbah · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      /checks record for the last decade

      You're right, it's not "insightful". It's "blindingly obvious reality". Torture, domestic spying that would have gotten Clinton shot, going from a budget surplus to doubling the debt to $10 trillion, lied us into a war, destoyed the economy, etc. And the Republic party supported him every step of the way.

    9. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by Atriqus · · Score: 1

      Look at the average age of that party, relatively speaking that is modern for the RNC.

      --
      Hey, look! It's Bono's brother.
    10. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by multisync · · Score: 1

      And the Republic party supported him every step of the way.

      So did a lot of Democrats

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    11. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Pissing off a Modern US Republican, or any other liberal is a good thing indeed.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    12. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      I admit to voting Republican in the past. In all honesty I approved of what I saw as a philosophy as fiscal responsibility and a tough stance on crime. The last 6 years have been downright scary in the way things are going. The Republican party now is not the one I voted for when I first turned 18. Now I proudly say that I am politically Independent and sometimes choose not to vote simply because I no longer make much of a distinction between the two parties. They're 99% similar and squabble enough about the remaining 1% to make the general public think they are polar opposites.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    13. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by JumpDrive · · Score: 1

      No for various reasons we just hate the Republican party right now.

      Give us a couple of years and we might hate Democrats.

      Currently I just hate the Democrats less.

      Two, he's a Canadian and we are sucking up to him because we would like to live in a country with National Healthcare and one of the most stable banking systems in the world.
      The recession in Canada is caused more by the fact everyone else is in a recession. They have laws which are enforced to prevent banks from pulling some of the crap American banks were involved in.

      And also the giving him sympathy points, because none of his teams made it to the Stanley Cup Finals.

    14. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by time$lice · · Score: 1

      As I said, the comment makes people flare up. Flamebait. Doesn't matter what side you're own. From not RTFA and only the headline, this senator sounds like a piece of work indeed. I don't know about yall, but I thought his comments (from not RTFA) sounded like text book RIAA, MPAA responses. Anyway, I'm done with this particular sup-thread.

    15. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by T+Murphy · · Score: 1, Troll

      I'm not about to praise Bush for anything, but please drop the "lied us into war" nonesense. Intel from multiple countries indicated WMDs and Saddam acted every bit like he had them. People saying Bush knew there were no WMDs sound just like any other conspiracy theorists, given I haven't seen anything beyond speculation. Did Bush want war because of WMDs or oil? I guess you'd have to ask him on that one, but the WMDs were the reason for the coalition. You don't need to stretch facts to make the guy look bad, so why make yourself look bad in the process?

    16. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm, yeah, they hate us for our freedom!

    17. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have our own problems here. The thing is, a lot of them are caused by pressure from the USA. I'd rather be angry at American politicians in general who believe that they have the right to dictate what Canadians can an cannot do. Then again, we have our own misinformed politicians as well.

    18. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      The "lied us into war" line is a popular troll, so I like to point out to people how it doesn't really belong in otherwise relevent posts. I make my disagreement rather clear but I don't troll - I'm not posting simply to inflame, yet I get improperly marked troll. I should've removed my karma bonus, and an offtopic mod may have been on target, but an honest response being marked troll just looks like someone disagrees with me (and agrees with the troll I'm pointing out).

      You mod people troll if they are likely to detract from the discussion - I was responding to the guy and not trying to start a flame war. Now this post is offtopic, but it is not a troll (look up troll please), as I am not expecting any response. It is not going to harm the conversation as most people are done discussing the story and this is an obscure 1 point comment no one will see unless they're following this conversation, so modding this post up or down would be misuse, as points should be spent on active discussion. I don't troll, yet every time I post something disagreeable to the general crowd, I get modded troll anyways. Thank god I have enough karma.
      /endrant

    19. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps if he just rephrased it to 'If as a society you are pissing off Orrin Hatch, you have to be doing something right.'

      Surely we can all agree that pissing off Orrin Hatch is a VERY good thing.

    20. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can't let facts obscure hype can we? The Republicans have acquired the ability to come down on the wrong side of most every issue lately, uncanny, such insight.

    21. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      They're doing something right the wrong way.

      Sort of like that guy who pulls a semi truck with his genitals. Congrats on moving the truck, but DEAR GOD THERE ARE BETTER WAYS, YOU MONSTER!

      --
      It's been a long time.
    22. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      That's the problem with the American right/left false dichotomy. You either like one group or the other, but in reality they're incredibly close in how they do things and so you can't just hate one group and love the other, because they're really not polar opposites except on a few key marketing issues.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    23. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Anyone who thinks the democrats are a panacea don't know enough about democrats. They're demonstratably better than the Republicans in a lot of areas(For evidence, look at inflation-adjusted spending levels for democratic and republican presidents since Nixon. For more, contrast the TARP program passed under Bush to the auto bailouts under Obama. One was carte blanche with 700 billion dollars with a part of the bill literally saying "you don't need to see what we do with it", the other was loaded with demands and feedback and transparency, but in a lot of other ways, they're just as bad or worse. Bending over for the music industry is one way they're worse. Another way that's obvious to anyone who cares is the Obama justice department is continuing the pursuit of evil started under the Bush administration.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    24. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Orrin Hatch is anything but Modern. I'm from Utah, and I'm a Republican. My GRANDMOTHER got the man elected to the Senate. And I am now the mother of three.

    25. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by dpiven · · Score: 1

      ORRIN HATCH is a modern US Republican? Orrin Hatch is Kim Jong-Il on skis.

    26. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      Wasn't Senator Hatch against free software licenses like the GPL as well? Didn't he propose a bill or something like that to ban free licenses?

      I'm trying to find a post from a few years back, where I took a hex editor to his mp3s, and found they were all encoded using LAME. I think I may have posted that one anonymously though...

    27. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And here's the deal: I don't care about slashdot's "guidelines," or some legalistic dictionary-entry take on what constitutes healthy discussion; I use my mod points as I please. I earned them because I made positive contributions to the overall discourse of this forum, and I treat that as my mandate to steer the conversation in the direction that I see fit.

      Just so you know, there are opinions that are inherently trollish, no matter how "civilly" put, and yours was one of them. Normally I mod down the whiners when they wail and gnash their teeth over some "improper" moderation, but I'll go easy on you this time and extend an olive branch in the hopes that you start to correct your thinking. Take the fact that I didn't mod this post troll as *your* mandate- to speak less and listen more. Next time you feel the need to correct someone in a political thread- offtopic or no- don't. Let it slide. Or you might find that there isn't a lot of karma to go around, after all.

    28. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by Velex · · Score: 1

      sometimes choose not to vote simply because I no longer make much of a distinction between the two parties

      There were 5 political parties represented on my ballot last November. I voted mostly Libertarian, although I went Green once or twice. That was in Michigan, but I guess only in my country are people so backwards that throwing away your vote means actually voting, but not for the popular two parties. Apparently not voting isn't throwing your vote away.

      I wonder who keeps track of all these people who don't vote (I know quite a few people like you!) and what kind of critera they have for saying, "Well, looks like enough people aren't voting, we're just going to have to change things." I've never heard of such a thing, but all you non-voters must know something I don't about how the political process in a democracy works.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    29. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, but the AC is RIGHT.

    30. Re:makes me proud to be a canadian by mpthompson · · Score: 1

      Don't fret my little Canadian friend. The US Democrats are pissed off at you as well. You might be interested in reading what Joe Biden had to say about Canada at a recent MPAA dinner. Feel better now? :-)

  6. $58 billion saved! by sakdoctor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's an incredible saving. That money can be used to fix broken windows everywhere.

    1. Re:$58 billion saved! by fpgaprogrammer · · Score: 1

      That's an incredible saving. That money can be used to fix broken windows everywhere.

      lol--and then the window makers can buy bread from the baker who can buy shoes from the shoemaker who can buy copyrighted textbooks for his child in high school. :)

  7. Yeah Canada by Chlorine+Trifluoride · · Score: 5, Funny

    How dare you give your citizens freedom.

    1. Re:Yeah Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't worry we're still pressurized into draconian marijuana laws, thanks to the efforts of your senators, they'll probably get us to bring back the noose for file sharing soon too.

    2. Re:Yeah Canada by twidarkling · · Score: 0

      "Draconian." As most people charged with marijuana-related offences don't serve jail time, I think you need to recheck your definition of draconian. And we've tried multiple times to decriminalize it down to just a ticketing offence. It'll keep being brought up, and eventually it'll pass. Don't deflect the topic at hand with FUD.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    3. Re:Yeah Canada by RetroGeek · · Score: 1

      What freedom?

      We pay a surtax on every CD sold here. That surtax goes directly to our version of the RIAA. They in turn are supposed to distribute that to the artists etc.

      Which is why our Supreme Court decided that music downloads are not prosecutable.

      --

      - - - - - - - - - - -
      I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
    4. Re:Yeah Canada by Ender+Wiggin+77 · · Score: 1

      Marijuana possession in Canada gets you the equivalent of a j-walking ticket. No criminal record, unless you have a lot (more than a few ounces?) or are trafficing. My Canadian police buddy tells me people routinely spark up in public and as long as they don't disturb the peace the cops leave them alone. That's not so draconian IMO.

    5. Re:Yeah Canada by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Ah, the sweet sweet freedom to pay tax on CDRs they buy for backups, because they could be used to copy audio CDs.

    6. Re:Yeah Canada by sesshomaru · · Score: 1

      o/~ Oh, I'm proud to be a Canadian, where at least I know I'm free o/~

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    7. Re:Yeah Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Draconian." As most people charged with marijuana-related offenses don't get killed...

      Fixed it for you

    8. Re:Yeah Canada by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      It is true, though. Americans love sticking their nose in our democracy.

      Freedom baby, yeah!

      --
      It's been a long time.
    9. Re:Yeah Canada by jcgf · · Score: 1
      You are correct sir. However old Harpie wants to bring in mandatory 1 year sentences for "trafficking"

      http://www.whyprohibition.ca/content/stephen-harper-introduces-mandatory-minimum-sentences-marijuana

      http://thefilter.ca/articles/canada/tories-reveal-mandatory-jail-terms-for-growing-marijuana/

      Yes, he is an asshole Bush wannabe, and yes the Liberals are spineless bastards that won't stand up to him.

    10. Re:Yeah Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't aware that copyright infringement was an intrinsic right in Canada. Can you cite this?

  8. $58 billion? by Quantus347 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Where exactly did he get his numbers? I wonder?

    --
    Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
    1. Re:$58 billion? by Yvan256 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Either from the RIAA/MPAA, or from Verizon.

      In both cases the numbers are meaningless.

    2. Re:$58 billion? by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative

      Where exactly did he get his numbers? I wonder?

      I believe he was citing the Business Software Alliance's annual report on piracy. Although that value I believe is for world-wide losses, not American.

      --
      My work here is dung.
    3. Re:$58 billion? by localman57 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      'In fact, one study reports that each year, copyright piracy from motion pictures, sound recordings, business and entertainment software, and video games costs the US economy $58 billion in total output, costs American workers 373,375 jobs and $16.3 billion in earnings, and costs federal, state, and local governments $2.6 billion in tax revenue.

      I wonder if this number includes the economic benefits gained from people buying extra hard drives, spindles of DVD-Rs, and upgrading their broadband connections to the fastest unlimited connections they can get? Simply looking at it as an economist, neither condemning nor condoning the action of pirating...

    4. Re:$58 billion? by Random2 · · Score: 5, Funny

      America IS the world. Duh.

      --
      "Our goal each year should be to increase the number of goals we set for ourselves!"
    5. Re:$58 billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      probably quoted from the last guy that quoted some number who quoted them from some other guy who calculated for inflation from some numbers he heard some other guy quote from a magazine article from 1981 or so that had no actual fact numbers to begin with.

      But it sure sounds impressive so it must be true.

    6. Re:$58 billion? by spiffmastercow · · Score: 4, Funny

      Where exactly did he get his numbers? I wonder?

      Well, when each song download is worth $200,000...

    7. Re:$58 billion? by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      It's all the same thing when you look at it decimal-wise

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    8. Re:$58 billion? by k10quaint · · Score: 1

      Where exactly did he get his numbers? I wonder?

      Didn't you read the summary? There was $19,640 dollars of "research" done to supply those numbers.

    9. Re:$58 billion? by joelmax · · Score: 1

      Where exactly did he get his numbers? I wonder?

      I believe he was citing the Business Software Alliance's annual report on piracy. Although that value I believe is for world-wide losses, not American.

      Isnt that the one the conference board of canada plagarized?

    10. Re:$58 billion? by nicolas.kassis · · Score: 1

      So... were not talking about only American jobs only then? So that 300+K is also a lie.

    11. Re:$58 billion? by nicolas.kassis · · Score: 1

      Forgot to also mention, what extra job do you need to create when copying is nearly free to the producer. Why wouldn't they make that as profit instead of wasting it on more employees.

    12. Re:$58 billion? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well said. Kinda hard to feel bad for Media conglomerates when most of them own ISPs who are quite happy to advertise their wares in terms of "fast access to media".

      Somebody's making money, and it's not the pirates.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    13. Re:$58 billion? by nicolas.kassis · · Score: 1

      I'm in the wrong line of work.

    14. Re:$58 billion? by dk90406 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      RIAA / MPAA? That number is even more absurd than the older numbers that Ars Technica analyzed recently: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/rep-howard-berman-calls-for-new-ip-law-using-dodgy-data.ars
      The job loss claim is ludicrous! 300.000+ jobs? How? Where? So if all download their stuff legally from then net that number of jobs will be created? Or does he expect that CD and DVD stores will spring back to life in this digital age at the cost of LEGAL downloads?

    15. Re:$58 billion? by LSDelirious · · Score: 1

      $58 Billion Purple Monkey Dishwasher!

      --
      Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property; A Corporation is the legal fiction that property is a person.
    16. Re:$58 billion? by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      In that case, the money goes to people who didn't contribute to his campaign. So it's bad.

      Except for the broadband companies - I guess there is some middle ground after all.

    17. Re:$58 billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, criticize us with **AA garbage and use BSA numbers to justify it. Yet forget to mention Canada ranks 17th for lowest piracy rates from BSA stats.

    18. Re:$58 billion? by aaandre · · Score: 1

      We all know where. His royal senator a$$.

    19. Re:$58 billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same place that MPAA, RIAA, ASCAP and the BSA gets them - They pull them out of their asses! All a pack of rat-bastards!

    20. Re:$58 billion? by caladine · · Score: 1

      After looking at their numbers, it's clear that BSA doesn't stand for "Business Software"...

    21. Re:$58 billion? by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      I believe the Broken Window argument is what most people use to attack that assertion.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    22. Re:$58 billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Where exactly did he get his numbers? I wonder?

      Well, lets just say I don't like the smell of them.

    23. Re:$58 billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... who quoted them from some other guy who calculated for inflation from some numbers he heard some other guy quote from ...

      ... the homework I happened to turn in late, that one time in second grade when my family had visited relatives in Norway. Let me just start by saying how sorry I am that those numbers where grossly inflated, in part due to my misunderstanding of how the decimal system works.

    24. Re:$58 billion? by silanea · · Score: 1

      Somebody's making money, and it's not the pirates.

      Please mod parent up. This is the central issue here. Unlicensed copies don't just magically appear out of thin air, and I certainly have not seen a massive surge in my savings account since I first surfed to TPB. The cash is going somewhere. And, seeing how many concerts I and my acquaintances have been to over the past few years, I somehow doubt that the artists actually take as much of a financial loss as the industry wants us to believe.

      --
      Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
    25. Re:$58 billion? by I+cant+believe+its+n · · Score: 1

      Where exactly did he get his numbers? I wonder?

      S. Wonder

      --
      She made the willows dance
    26. Re:$58 billion? by silanea · · Score: 1

      So if all download their stuff legally from then net that number of jobs will be created?

      This would make for a nice test of their truthfulness: Get everyone to not download anything without a proper license for one year and see whether those jobs have been created. Oh well, if only we did not already know how this would turn out...

      --
      Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
    27. Re:$58 billion? by gbarules2999 · · Score: 1

      'In fact, one study reports that each year, copyright piracy from motion pictures, sound recordings, business and entertainment software, and video games costs their respective industries $58 billion in total output, costs American workers 373,375 jobs and $16.3 billion in earnings, and costs federal, state, and local governments $2.6 billion in tax revenue.

      Fixed that for the Republican. That revenue isn't "lost." It's not like people are shredding the dollar bills worth that game/movie/song as they pirate. It's just being re-entered into something else.

      I'm also not pro-piracy, but when you see idiots like these, it's hard not to be.

    28. Re:$58 billion? by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      I donno but honestly think of the lawyers!
      If there wasn't all this ramped piracy going on they would be out of work and all their children would have to goto public school and not get a proper education. The horror!

      I also question who exactly is loosing an American job because the factory in china only has to make X units instead of X+Y units. And I also wonder how the companies are still afloat if they are loosing billions of dollars. Humm something is oddly wrong here.

      Also how can anyone applaud a case that has been shown to have been wildly mishandled? I guess as long as the outcome is to your advantage then it doesn't mater... I'll be sure to lie next time in court since it's ok as long as I'm right and everyone else is wrong.

    29. Re:$58 billion? by gwait · · Score: 1

      Look to his campaign donations, and which high paid lobbyists are hanging around.

      Herein lies the trouble with western democracy:

      "The amount that lobbyists charge their new clients has increased by nearly one hundred percent in that same period, according to The Washington Post, going up to anything from $20,000 to $40,000 a month. Starting salaries have risen to nearly $300,000 a year for the best-connected people, those leaving Congress or the administration.

      The total spent per month by special interests wining, dining, and seducing federal officials is now nearly $200 million. Per month. "

      See http://hankedson.squarespace.com/saving-democracy-by-bill-moyer/ and many other sources for details..

      Both sides of the political spectrum.

      --
      Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
  9. Who wants a treat? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Orrin Hatch (R-UT) once again was charming,
    informed, thoughtful and inspiring in his speech."

    Who's a good doggy? Who's a good doggy?
    You are aren't you! Have some kibble.

    1. Re:Who wants a treat? by dkleinsc · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm afraid that analogy doesn't work for me: Puppies are cute. Orrin Hatch isn't.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:Who wants a treat? by gbarules2999 · · Score: 1

      Some puppies are cute. Others...well...

  10. So the Senator is applauding corrupt trials... by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sure glad that he is a senator then. I would love to see how he would feel if he was convicted in a trial and it turned out that the Judge was a high ranking member of the puppeteers of the prosecutor. Talk about trying to stack the deck. I know lets make sure the Judge is on our side and already believes us, that will make it much easier to make sure the outcome is the one we want.

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    1. Re:So the Senator is applauding corrupt trials... by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      I'm sure glad that he is a senator then. I would love to see how he would feel if he was convicted in a trial and it turned out that the Judge was a high ranking member of the puppeteers of the prosecutor.

      If the piratebay people were so inclined, they could probably spend a few hundred dollars and get a rebuttal run at prnewswire.com which would hit the newsdesks of pretty much all the newspapers in the country and plenty of places online.

      Not to say that those newsdesks would necessarily do anything with it, but if TPB guys were clever enough they might get noticed - the news does love a good fight that involves overtly hypocritical politicians, especially when accusations of corruption are involved and the guy is a bought-and-paid for MAFIAA mouth-piece.

    2. Re:So the Senator is applauding corrupt trials... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just call him Palpatine!

    3. Re:So the Senator is applauding corrupt trials... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know lets make sure the Judge is on our side and already believes us

      Um....isn't that already the "norm" here in America?
      After all, if you live in NY, and the Company is based in California, how is it they can bring it up in a Texas Court, unless it is because they know that judge is more likely to rule in their favor?

  11. Haha, love those stats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Is that like the "15 pounds of pot found!" busts where the dude had one puny 10cm plant that happened to be in a 15 pound planter.

  12. Blame Canada by oldspewey · · Score: 5, Informative

    I suppose it would be a waste of time to explain to this genius that the "problem" of file sharing in Canada is largely a myth and has been discredited.

    --
    If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    1. Re:Blame Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I suppose it would be a waste of time to explain to this genius that the "problem" of file sharing in Canada is largely a myth [canada.com] and has been discredited [www.cbc.ca].

      For anyone too lazy to read the helpful link provided by the parent, basically it boils down that they didn't do any actual measurements in Canada, they extrapolated based on what their (flawed) statistical model indicated should be their projected piracy rates.

      There is no evidence (real or otherwise) that piracy in Canada happens at anywhere near the rate they pulled out of their backsides.

    2. Re:Blame Canada by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking Orrin's just trying to justify the US invading Canada & annexing it. Too bad, it was a nice place to visit once upon a time in the 70's...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    3. Re:Blame Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What have facts to do with it? WhOrin's constituency is the media industry, he's representing those who (cough...cough...) funded his election.

    4. Re:Blame Canada by fran6gagne · · Score: 1

      By the time you get out of Irak, Canadians have nothing to worry about for the next 50 years....

    5. Re:Blame Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given how many USAians *still* believe the September 11 hijackers came into the US from Canada....

      The US does *not* want to be bothered with facts, for heaven's sake...

    6. Re:Blame Canada by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Our American way of life. Isn't it grand?

      Peace, Freedom, and bacon and eggs; Seems perfect, but what if it's not?

      Friends, your future may not be a secure as you think. Where will you be when the atomic bombs fall?

      You can secure your family's future by reserving your spot in a state of the art underground vault from Vault-tec.

      That's right Bob! Act now, and your family can wait out the horrors of nuclear devastation. And Dorris, the vault will have all the amenities of your modern-day home, and it's attractive; and Sally, in the vault you might meet that special someone, just as you would on the surface; and in a few short years, you and your fellow vault dwellers will re-populate our great country; And billy, you'll have lots of swell kids to play with!

      Reserve your family's spot in a state of the art underground vault today! Sign up now, and prepare for the future!

      --
      It's been a long time.
    7. Re:Blame Canada by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 1

      "they extrapolated based on what their (flawed) statistical model indicated should be their projected piracy rates."

      Also, if they used the US piracy rate as the basis; and Canada is on 'the list' according to their extrapolated figures; then the original country (The US) should also be on that same 'list' of top copyright offenders worldwide.

      Bet they didn't consider that when fudging statistics.

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
  13. Wrong by whisper_jeff · · Score: 3, Informative

    Hey, Orrin. Just an FYI - those numbers have been proven wrong, on numerous occasions by numerous sources. And not wrong in the "close but not quite accurate" sense - wrong as in "so far off from any vague hint of accuracy as to be laughable." You keep quoting numbers that are being fed to you by the MPAA and RIAA and they're making you look stupid. You might want to have one of your staff members do a smidge of research so you don't look quite so idiotic. Oh, and when you spout off these incorrect numbers, it weakens any other point you may have by association. But, hey, you enjoy that new deck that the RIAA/MPAA donation allowed you to add to your country home.

    1. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if you accept that those numbers are correct, and it's almost laughably naive to do so, there's still a flawed assumption in his logic. First, the number should be split into two numbers, the losses in the US and the losses abroad. The losses abroad could be considered to be lost revenues to both the content cartels and the governments that collect business and income taxes on profits made by those companies and their employees. Sales tax, obviously, would not apply to foreign sales.

      But the number lost in the US would, IMHO, actually benefit the economy rather than hurt it. It's already been firmly established that Americans are saving less money and actually going further into debt than at any point in recent history. So money that would have been spent on copyrighted content is not sitting idle. It's being spent on other things that are generating the same tax revenues that would have been generated if it were spent legally obtaining the content in question.

      It's another form of the broken window fallacy. Just because something is a net negative or net positive to an individual entity, that does not mean that it is a net negative or net positive to the economy as a whole.

    2. Re:Wrong by SwordsmanLuke · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Orrin's an idiot with no understanding of technical issues. That doesn't stop him from mouthing off about them though. I recall once - during a session about some cyber-security bill - when he asked why we don't just upload counter-attack viruses to the "hackers" spreading the viruses in the first place. Ignoring the lack of technical understanding, it worried me then (as now) that he didn't seem to comprehend the legal ramifications of what he was suggesting.

      As one of the rare non-R's in Utah, I voted against him every chance I got - for all the good it did. 8^\

      --
      Any plan which depends on a fundamental change in human behavior is doomed from the start.
  14. 58 Billion that went elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now what do you suppose the people that downloaded movies/music did with that money?

    They couldn't possibly have spent that money elsewhere (most likely on a new HDD =)

    1. Re:58 Billion that went elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They couldn't possibly have spent that money elsewhere (most likely on a new HDD =)

      Even if it wasn't on hard drives and piracy 'paraphanalia' I'm guessing people spent this extra $58 billion on something.
      If so, the economy hasn't lost anything. If anything more people have jobs because of this. You can employ 3 or 4
      people to stack shelves for what Madonna pays one of her 27 assistants.

  15. So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Right whines and makes up numbers as scare tactics, and the Holy Left appoints the RIAA's attack dogs to run the justice department.

    I'm thinking it's time to move to Canada.

    1. Re:So by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why move to Canada whenever Sweden is going to have some pirates in office soon and has a public generally anti-copyright.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:So by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Why move to Canada whenever Sweden is going to have some pirates in office soon and has a public generally anti-copyright.

      Because it's more expensive, it's facing rising crime because it doesn't do enough to help immigrants assimilate and gain employment, and the people seem offensively taciturn and appallingly alcoholic to visitors from outside the Nordic countries. FWIW, I am an immigrant to next door Finland, and while I myself enjoy many aspects of living here and I hope its welfare state continues to be a model of how to massively raise quality of life, I wouldn't recommend a move to Scandinavia to just anyone. For some reason, Canada seems a bit more universal in appeal.

    3. Re:So by skrolle2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, the Pirate Party gained a seat in the EU parliament in Brussels, not in the Swedish parliament.

    4. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The language barrier?

    5. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he hates amazingly hot women who enjoy casual sex.

    6. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO!!! It is time to make a difference in our country. The left sux.. and the right sux. We need to finally be brave enough to stand up and RUN for office.... OR vote independent!! Never the less don't give up on America. Work to reclaim America - as a country with a government that is For the people by the people. This is why it is all of control right now. America is turning into a place run by the Politicians for the Money Grubbers.

  16. RIAA Tax by Akido37 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wait, I thought there was a special tax in Canada on blank media that the government just handed over to the RIAA-equivalent.

    1. Re:RIAA Tax by Coraon · · Score: 1

      There is, and I think over all its a good system, I don't mind paying an extra $2 for a spindle of 50 dvd's if it means I can copy whatever the hell I want on them. As a bonus we still own our software, not lease it and DRM is technically illegal here as it violates our privacy act. EULA's don't work here because you have to agree to them after you buy them. We have fair copyright law here, so I guess that makes us the Tortuga of the internet in their eyes.

      --
      -Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
    2. Re:RIAA Tax by LSDelirious · · Score: 1

      Just wait until they try to tax all binary information... Zeros are Free, but Ones will cost ya

      --
      Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property; A Corporation is the legal fiction that property is a person.
    3. Re:RIAA Tax by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      drm is NOT illegal there. you telling me there's no direct-tv or cable-tv that is encrypted?

      that's drm.

      you have drm. every damned country has drm ;(

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:RIAA Tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually i beleave that is just on CD-R's not DVD-R's. So really it doesn't effect any one.

    5. Re:RIAA Tax by Jester998 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is, but little-to-none of it takes the form of kickbacks to US Senators, which is why he's all up in arms.

    6. Re:RIAA Tax by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      I've never heard of a decoder box in Canada. Cable comes in through... well, cable, plugs in to TV, We get signal. If you've got satellite, you need a receiver box to process the signal, but that's about it.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    7. Re:RIAA Tax by Synchis · · Score: 1

      It's not a tax, its a Levy.

      The levy is on certain types of blank recordable media, and is called the "Private Copying Levy". It does not go directly to the RIAA-equivelent. It goes to the Private Copying Collective to be divided up amonst those who *apply* for a piece of it.

      This Levy makes certain types of downloading legal, such as downloading directly to recordable media that is covered by the levy.

      It does not however make *all* downloading of copyrighted material legal. Nor does it cover anything but music recordings.

      The private copying levy also covers things like... borrowing a cd from a friend and making a copy of it for personal use, or borrowing a cd from a library for the same reason.

      On the other hand, distributing copyrighted material is still infringing. Posting copyrighted material online, making copies of copyrighted material and giving them away, etc is still infringing actions and can still be prosecuted. And no, it doesn't matter if you did it for profit or not.

      --
      Thomas A. Knight
      Author of The Time Weaver
    8. Re:RIAA Tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right You are. In Canada you pay a tax on blank media that is give to the RIAA, MPAA (or more correctly their Canadian branches) and some software alliance. It doesn't matter what you do with the media. Record your own music, distribute your own software or make your own movie these guys make money regardless.

    9. Re:RIAA Tax by n30na · · Score: 1

      Receiver boxes can do decoding too. And anyway, non-digital un-drm'd cable is still offered many places, even in the US.

    10. Re:RIAA Tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and it made some forms of audio copying legal. It doesn't cover video or software (for example) at all. Piracy is still possible.

    11. Re:RIAA Tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but Canada's version of the RIAA realized that you can make a lot more money suing people if downloading is made illegal.

      Of course, if it WAS made illegal, there'd still be that tax on blank media. Like hell they'll give up THAT free income as well.

    12. Re:RIAA Tax by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a plot to increase the use of 1337-speak.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    13. Re:RIAA Tax by gwait · · Score: 1

      No DRM in Canada? Nonsense! Many times over Nonsense!

      Try connecting to a digital TV satellite without a decoder box. Try watching pay per view on your digital cable box without paying for it.
      Try accessing your IPod Touch without using Apple's ITunes on Windows or Mac OS.

      Every DVD sold in Canada has DRM on it.

      And the most absurd: Try running your HDMI thru certain model home theatre receivers to your digital TV - if some vendor screws up the keys your TV refuses to play the content, Legally purchased content by the way.

      --
      Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
    14. Re:RIAA Tax by gwait · · Score: 1

          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/levy

      Save the doublespeak for the politicians.

      This is a guilty until proven - nah never mind you're all guilty, so pay Celine Dion for the crime of backing up your bank statements on blank CDs.

      Welfare for an obsolete business model. And yes, you can guess I'm against another blank "Levy" on internet usage. No reason the Media conglomerates should get free welfare from anyone.

      --
      Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
    15. Re:RIAA Tax by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      A levy is still a tax to the person paying at the counter. The only difference is where the money goes, one ends up in the general revenue stream. The other ends up in someones pockets to 'protect' their industry.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    16. Re:RIAA Tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that's why downloading music in Canada is legal.

    17. Re:RIAA Tax by Synchis · · Score: 1

      Now now, I didn't say I *approved* of this approach. I'm simply clarifying the facts for those that seem to think that this (levy/tax) makes all downloading in Canada legal. Which is simply not the case.

      The fact that the levy exists means that certain types of normally infringing activities are no longer infringing. (They are considered private copies, personal use only.)

      The other side of this issue is the side you are focused on:

      The levy is a blanket provision, and does not consider *WHAT* the media is being used for. Thus, if I buy CD's to back up my data files from my computer, or I buy a memory card for my camera, I still pay the levy.

      Thus, the levy is sort of bitter-sweet. But authorities/gov't have no way of knowing what your using the media for. And a voluntary levy is not possible, as nobody would actually pay it.

      --
      Thomas A. Knight
      Author of The Time Weaver
  17. Here's a little rhyme I copyrighted by xednieht · · Score: 4, Funny

    Orrin Hatch reminds of putrid old snatch. (C) 2009 all rights reserved

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools
  18. Wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    cost the economy $58 billion or allowed those $58 billion to be introduced into the ocal economy rather than going straight into madonna's offshore account?

  19. Some things the Senator needs to understand. by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some things the Senator needs to understand:

    1/ Other countries are INDEPENDENT and the United States has no authority to dictate to them.

    2/ Industry funded studies designed to "prove" their viewpoint cannot be trusted.

    3/ Copyright under the U.S. Constitution was not intended to be eternal. It was supposed to be for a limited time and I suspect that "limited" was meant in compared to the human life span not compared to eternity.

    3/ The DMCA is bad law and should be repealed rather than encouraging others to implement the same

    1. Re:Some things the Senator needs to understand. by gringofrijolero · · Score: 5, Funny

      Other countries are INDEPENDENT and the United States has no authority to dictate to them.

      [citation needed]

      --
      Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
    2. Re:Some things the Senator needs to understand. by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative

      Some things the Senator needs to understand ...

      Might I remind you that this is the same Senator Orrin Hatch who

      Combine those first two points and I wager that your comment not only falls upon deaf ears but might instead cause him to laugh. This guy's got a long history and he's been very successful doing it.

      --
      My work here is dung.
    3. Re:Some things the Senator needs to understand. by sesshomaru · · Score: 1

      Actually, if China is on the list, don't they own us now?

      Seriously, how much American National Debt do they have to hold before we have to start doing what they say?

      I've bought my fair share of "dubious" media, and "game enhancing mechanisms" from Hong Kong, but why would the Chinese government have to listen to the US government?

      I mean, heck, they just bought Hummer, they'll probably get the rest of GM eventually, for fire sale prices.... meanwhile, we're giving all our money to the big banks, which they use to try to make themselves even more overleveraged than they are now.

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    4. Re:Some things the Senator needs to understand. by aaandre · · Score: 1

      Sounds good in a logical world. In this one, he doesn't need to understand anything.

      All he needs to do is push his lobbyists' political/economic agendas and say the right things that make his party like him and get him re-elected.

      He already does his job perfectly.

      We in the USA do not really believe that other countries are independent. We do not care about scientific proof nearly as much as we care about sensational headlines and soundbites. We do not care of copyright extension because the police is not yet kicking our doors for singing Happy Birthday. And we don't know what laws govern us. Ask the average person on the street about DMCA or the Patriot Act or about Copyright law terms... and don't hold your breath.

      We don't really care what our politicians are doing and they've been on a rampage for decades, selling the rights to raping the public, the land and the environment to the highest bidder.

      Legally.

      Have a nice day.

    5. Re:Some things the Senator needs to understand. by jeanph01 · · Score: 1

      He said things that americans will react to : particularly this one "costs American workers 373,375 jobs". Canada does not live alone on a island. If americans in general are angry (justified or not) toward Canada they have 3 options : stand and ignore it, inform american that they are lied to, do what they ask.

      And considering the Harper government here that is pro american lobbies, I'm not sure what it will do. For my part, i will fight and complain if they try to "dmca" us once again. They tried and failed a couple of times now.

    6. Re:Some things the Senator needs to understand. by slashing1 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Some things the Senator needs to understand:

      1/ Other countries are INDEPENDENT and the United States has no authority to dictate to them.

      This is an interesting claim; it sounds very much like what Iran, North Korea, and the previous U.S. administration believe[d]. We're an independent country, we can pursue nukes, torture, and whatnot, and no other country has the authority to dictate to us.

    7. Re:Some things the Senator needs to understand. by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Personally, I can't wait till the day he is too old & feeble to do his "job". I'm not saying he needs to go ahead & die already, but he does need to GTFO.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    8. Re:Some things the Senator needs to understand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      on ideology:

      1/ a man pointing a gun at you can have authority, and independence is an illusion

      2/ where it came from or who funded it doesnt matter if the data is valid

      3/ blah

      4/ blah

      blah

  20. On that note by LSDelirious · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is estimated that the US printing industry lost Eleventy Billion Dollars in book sales last year from all those freeloading bastards reading at their local public library, which also contributed to heavy losses in the paper manufacturing industry....

    --
    Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property; A Corporation is the legal fiction that property is a person.
    1. Re:On that note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The worst part is that, from what I've heard, publishers assume that, on average, every book passes through four sets of hands, and they really do consider the other three sets of hands to be "lost sales".

    2. Re:On that note by Battle_Ratt · · Score: 1

      Eleventy Billion Dollars

      Isn't a number.....yet.

    3. Re:On that note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news, consumers spent $58 billion after savings due to pirating copyrighted works.

    4. Re:On that note by LSDelirious · · Score: 1

      if these trends continue, industry losses could reach as high as $Texas!

      --
      Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property; A Corporation is the legal fiction that property is a person.
  21. False statistics by TropicalCoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This has been thoroughly debunked by Professor Michael Geist a law professor at the University of Ottawa where he hold the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law.

    1. Re:False statistics by gringofrijolero · · Score: 1

      They can "debunk" all they want. Statistics are used to evoke emotional response. The more outrageous, the better.

      --
      Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
    2. Re:False statistics by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      there can't BE piracy in canada. they have blank media taxes and all that groovy kinda stuff.

      ie, their citizens have paid for the so-called crime, 'ahead of time'. to any reasonable person, if you are pre-charging me for something, I'm assuming that its ok to HAVE the thing you just charged me for.

      even buying blank cdr's that could be used for non-entertainment data (amazing, huh?) - you have to pay the media taxes.

      seems like piracy is already nulified since the goods have been paid for (not even willingly since you can't easy get your taxes back by demonstrating you are NOT copying music/movies to the media).

      can't have it both ways, media companies. you got your 'music tax' in canada and so you can't call ANYONE there a criminal. not now.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:False statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the blank media levy is only for the benefit for the CRIA, so there is no indemnity for downloading media which are not music. However, it isn't the policy of the RCMP or judiciary to pursue or prosecute downloaders anyway, so the legal distinction remains a moot point in practice.

    4. Re:False statistics by Synchis · · Score: 1

      I posted this in reply to somebody else, but am not above regurgitating it here to re-enforce this point:

      It's not a tax, its a Levy.

      The levy is on certain types of blank recordable media, and is called the "Private Copying Levy". It does not go directly to the RIAA-equivelent. It goes to the Private Copying Collective to be divided up amonst those who *apply* for a piece of it.

      This Levy makes certain types of downloading legal, such as downloading directly to recordable media that is covered by the levy.

      It does not however make *all* downloading of copyrighted material legal. Nor does it cover anything but music recordings.

      The private copying levy also covers things like... borrowing a cd from a friend and making a copy of it for personal use, or borrowing a cd from a library for the same reason.

      On the other hand, distributing copyrighted material is still infringing. Posting copyrighted material online, making copies of copyrighted material and giving them away, etc is still infringing actions and can still be prosecuted. And no, it doesn't matter if you did it for profit or not.

      --
      Thomas A. Knight
      Author of The Time Weaver
  22. Just to dispel any confusion. by BabyDuckHat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes, I live in Utah.
    Yes, I am Mormon.
    Yes, I really dislike Orin Hatch.

    1. Re:Just to dispel any confusion. by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      I think I speak for most people here

      Are you kidding? If anything, Slashdot has become increasingly like Redstate over the past few months.

    2. Re:Just to dispel any confusion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Utah as well.
      Why do we keep re-electing this guy? He pretends do be a republican, but consistently votes the other way. He really needs to be replaced by Pete Ashdown who would never make such ridiculous statements.

    3. Re:Just to dispel any confusion. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      How much of the Church s money goes toward Orrin Hatches campaign?

      Do you do anything besides grumble you don't like that man?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Just to dispel any confusion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I live in Utah.

      Yes, I am Mormon.

      Yes, I really dislike Orin Hatch.

      ditto
      ditto
      Amen Brutha!

    5. Re:Just to dispel any confusion. by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Go back to Russia!

      --
      It's been a long time.
  23. What's everybody worried about? by e9th · · Score: 1

    No Democrats agree with Hatch here. Right?

    1. Re:What's everybody worried about? by mpthompson · · Score: 1

      Damn right! No Democrats agree with Hatch at all! Ooops. Well, ah, nevermind...

  24. damn Democrats, whores to Hollywood! by Uberbah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...oh, wait. This Orrin Hatch, who.voted for the DMCA along with the rest of the Gopasaurs. Both parties suck on IP issues.

    1. Re:damn Democrats, whores to Hollywood! by kenp2002 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sonny Bono, Hatch, both parties? There is only one party.

      They are Legion, they are many.

      I see little difference between Clinton, Bush, Obama, Carter, etc.

      I see 1 party. The "Goverment as a Business" party whom we shall now refer to as the GAAB party comprising two idealogies:

      Left: The Goverment Controls Business
      Right: Business Control the Goverment

      but either way THEY CONTROL YOU.

      Seriously this partisan nonsense has to end, neither party has shown any credibitity in over 80 years and have done nothing for the nation as a whole, rather they have done plenty for themselves.

      When the USA stopped making real things and moved to a service economy the only thing we have left is our imaginary property that was long ago only supposed to be protected for 7 years has turned into a generation spanning con game with society at large losing in the end.

      Now as that society rebels watch carefully as the GAABs show their true colors.

      It is modern Feudalism with Goverment as the King and the large corporations as the fiefs. It's employees are the pesants\cattle and we can see the bloodlines clear as day now in both the Corporate spheres as well as in the media.

      I will coin a term if it hasn't already:

      The United States form of goverment is "Corporate Feudalism"

      --
      -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
    2. Re:damn Democrats, whores to Hollywood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think I could get that to fit on a T-shirt?

    3. Re:damn Democrats, whores to Hollywood! by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      i wish i had mod points i would mod you up for insight, your comment shows whats wrong with government (both parties) in a nutshell!

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    4. Re:damn Democrats, whores to Hollywood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed they do. This and privacy issues are why I'd actually vote for a Pirate Party candidate if they ever manage to get on the ballot.

    5. Re:damn Democrats, whores to Hollywood! by Locklin · · Score: 1

      Left: The Goverment Controls Business
      Right: Business Control the Goverment

      but either way THEY CONTROL YOU.

      That will change the day you stop voting for the party with the most extravagant marketing campaign.

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    6. Re:damn Democrats, whores to Hollywood! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Um, wow, so wrong and stupid while peppered with ignorance that can only be self inflicted.

      Well done.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:damn Democrats, whores to Hollywood! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      There isn't in insight in there at all. He makes no sense, show complete lack of any knowledge, and is basically the rant of a loon.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:damn Democrats, whores to Hollywood! by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

      I have a single policy: I don't vote for lawyers so that rules out both parties immediately...

      --
      -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
    9. Re:damn Democrats, whores to Hollywood! by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1
      I see little difference between Clinton, Bush, Obama, Carter, etc.

      Maybe a visit to the optician might be in order then? There is a long history of idiotic, corrupt government in the US, accompanied by a long history of people not bothering to vote and not bothering to inform themselves about the issues. The situation is not good, but you still have ready access to all the tools needed to make things better.

    10. Re:damn Democrats, whores to Hollywood! by bornagainpenguin · · Score: 1

      I don't know, but I'm certainly going to try it!

      --bornagainpenguin

      --
      Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
    11. Re:damn Democrats, whores to Hollywood! by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

      I see just fine and lived through all of them. Since Honest Abe the deomcrats and republicans have held tight control ever since.

      Every policy I have seen come down in my lifetime has never been about the good of the country as a whole. Just merely getting more of their own party in power at the expense of the whole.

      Criticise Obama, your a racist.
      Criticise Bush, your a commie or socialist.
      Criticise Clinton, your a neocon.
      Criticise Carter, your a facist.

      I've heard it all and the tools you proclaim are long gone. You cannot get an journalism out of the news anymore, just political nonsense. They hammer out 2000 page legislation that you can't even read in time before it goes to vote, most represenatives not even bothering to read it going to the party leaders for how they should vote rather then their constiuency.

      You cannot field a 3rd party canidate due to financial contraints.

      I studied history my whole life. Nothing in the last 10 years has been a suprise, nothing in the next 10 I doubt will either.

      The tools no longer exist for political discourse and change. You are more then welcome to define these tools but I doubt they hold up to scrutiny. Welcome to the new feudal age.

      If that were the case congress wouldn't have 20% approval ratings and we wouldn't be nearing a second civil war. The nation is at staggering speeds heading to another split but that is a whole new discussion there...

      --
      -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
    12. Re:damn Democrats, whores to Hollywood! by Viperpete · · Score: 1

      I agree with your eloquent post with the exception of your new term. I am more inclined to believe it is a Corporatocracy.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy

      --
      loose: not fitting closely or tightly != lose: to suffer the deprivation of
    13. Re:damn Democrats, whores to Hollywood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with that is that 50% of the population is below average. They will always vote for the most extravagant marketing campaign, regardless of how angry the other half of society gets about it. Ban mass political advertising, and you might have a chance.

  25. Lack of Understanding of Economics? by jayme0227 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Okay, maybe I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree, but if Americans aren't spending money on mp3s and downloaded movies, aren't they instead spending that money elsewhere? We have one of the lowest savings rates in the world, so it's not like the money is disappearing into our savings accounts. Therefore, downloading content on the internet should theoretically cost the economy $0 and $0 jobs, or at least considerably less than the figures quoted in the article, and instead create new jobs in other sectors rather than lining the pockets of movie execs. Then again, this whole philosophy is moot if nobodyâ(TM)s following the Pirates Code of Honor and buying content that is actually good.

    --
    But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
    1. Re:Lack of Understanding of Economics? by visible.frylock · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh no, of course not. Americans have one of the highest per capita savings rates in the world. Right now, instead of paying for music and movies, they're saving that money for their retirement.

      --
      Billy Brown rides on. Yolanda Green bypasses Gary White.
    2. Re:Lack of Understanding of Economics? by diablillo · · Score: 0

      Ummm, I don't think a tree has lightbulbs

    3. Re:Lack of Understanding of Economics? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Okay, maybe I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree, but if Americans aren't spending money on mp3s and downloaded movies, aren't they instead spending that money elsewhere? We have one of the lowest savings rates in the world, so it's not like the money is disappearing into our savings accounts.

      The thing is, America still produces a lot of entertainment, so the money paid for it tends to stick around in America. Just about everything else you can buy is being sold to you by another country.

    4. Re:Lack of Understanding of Economics? by joggle · · Score: 1

      If Orin Hatch was 100% correct (which he obviously isn't) then it would have an effect on the US's trading deficit, lowering it a tad if everyone paid the billions he thinks the US companies are owed.

      A lower trading deficit usually strengthens the value of the dollar and should even reduce the national debt (although in this case not by a lot in comparison to the total debt).

      It would theoretically also allow for more jobs in the US, although even if all this extra money was pouring in I'd wager that any new jobs would mainly be for cheap labor wealthy entertainers/executives employ (ie, most of this money would go to media companies who would in turn give the lion share to rich execs who would then have more money to pay for pool boy assistants and personal shoe-shiners...).

    5. Re:Lack of Understanding of Economics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      STFU.

      Sincerely,
      RIAA

    6. Re:Lack of Understanding of Economics? by Zerth · · Score: 1

      Plus, some of us only pirate foreign media, which actually keeps the money in our economy!

    7. Re:Lack of Understanding of Economics? by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Indeed, that money could be used for something of value instead. It's kind of the parable of broken glass.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  26. Questionable Statistics at Best by swanzilla · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I have my doubts that 373,375 Americans are engaged in full time piracy. I have bigger doubts that Sen. Hatch has statisticians capable of producing a figure of jobs lost to piracy accurate to six significant figures.

  27. Job Figures are BS by ultraexactzz · · Score: 1

    I'll note only that the $16.3 Billion in lost wages is just the payroll portion of the $58 Billion (about 30%), and that the jobs shown are the payroll divided by the average salary in the industry - about $43,500 according to the latest economic census numbers I can find. I can't imagine that 373,375 people have actually lost their jobs because someone downloaded Wolverine. Does that industry even have that many jobs in the US, since so many productions go to Vancouver?

    --
    Never underestimate the potential of Human stupidity. -Heinlein
  28. OMG! by droidsURlooking4 · · Score: 1

    58 Billion! We need a RIAA Bailout quick, or the economy is really doomed!

    1. Re:OMG! by internerdj · · Score: 1

      In Alabama politics, they call that a reimbursement of expense money: http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2009/06/securities_and_exchange_commis_1.html

  29. Orin Hatch doesn't understand the law by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The crux of the problem with "the pirate bay convictions" is that they aren't being properly tried under local law. The fact that they had their stuff seized and then returned to them should have been indication enough that the problem isn't with the pirate bay's activities, but with the local laws. Their present conviction is quite wrongful.

    Hatch rather reminds me of my ex-wife who believed that anything that made her angry must be against the law and so was inclined to call the police to resolve it. Hatch, of course, is one of the bought and paid for politicians and I simply can't believe anyone is taking him seriously any more... well okay, I can believe it simply because the general masses still don't get what is wrong with current copyright law and process... and definitely don't get that different countries have different ideals and standards of law.

    I would have been an interesting turn of things if the U.S.S.R. was able to peddle its influence to have other nations change their laws the way the U.S. does. And outside of the U.S. I am fairly certain that the practice is both unappreciated and unwelcome. It is probably one of the larger reasons the U.S. is presently disliked in the world.

    1. Re:Orin Hatch doesn't understand the law by jonaskoelker · · Score: 3, Funny

      And outside of the U.S. I am fairly certain that the practice is both unappreciated and unwelcome. It is probably one of the larger reasons the U.S. is presently disliked in the world.

      Quite on the contrary!

      I think it's commendable for GWB to go to such great lengths to give democracy, rule of law and civil liberties to the Iraqi people.

      I think it's especially noble of him, considering how he had to sacrifice those of his own people.

      Could you imagine anything more noble than to give up what you value the most (it's in the constitution), such that not your friend, but your long time enemy could have them for himself.

      Jesus would be proud of this man, as should every US citizen!

    2. Re:Orin Hatch doesn't understand the law by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Yeah Jesus would be REALLY proud except for that "thou shalt not kill" (no exceptions to that commandment are ever offered) and "turn the other cheek" response to 9-11.

    3. Re:Orin Hatch doesn't understand the law by sincewhen · · Score: 1

      > It is probably one of the larger reasons the U.S. is presently disliked in the world.

      You sir have hit the nail on the head.
      I'm in Australia, and, as part of a free trade agreement between ourselves and the USA, we were required to enact some of the provisions of the DMCA.

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
    4. Re:Orin Hatch doesn't understand the law by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      Actually, the USSR did peddle its influence - worldwide. Were you alive during the Cold War? They spared no expense to influence countries with ideology or outright bribes.

      ...ever since the beginning of the revolution it had been orthodox Communist strategy not to seek an open and general military confrontation with capitalist power, but rather precisely to avoid such confrontation and to conduct the attack on the capitalist world in a much more cautious manner, representing what Lenin termed a "state of partial war," and involving the elastic and opportunistic use of a wide variety of tactics including outstandingly such things as deception, concealed penetration and subversion, psychological warfare, and above all the adroit exploitation of every conceivable form of division in capitalist society, whether on the international scale or within the domestic framework of capitalist states.

      Large numbers of people, both in Western Europe and in the United States, were incapable of understanding the Russian technique of penetration and "partial war" or of thinking in terms of this technique. They were capable of thinking about international developments only in the old-fashioned terms of full-fledged war or full-fledged peace. It was inconceivable to them that there could be real and serious threats to the independence of their countries that did not come to them in the form of foreign armies marching across frontiers; and it was natural that in undertaking to combat what they conceived to be a foreign threat they should have turned to the old-fashioned and familiar expedient of military alliance. They had understood that there was a threat; but they had not understood the nature of that threat, and were hardly capable of doing so.

      Nor was it possible for anyone to argue that this outlook was wholly wrong. In the first place, the use of violence had never been ruled out of the Soviet bag of tricks; violence occupied, in fact, a prominent place in that collection. One could not even say that international violence - that is, war - Whad been fully ruled out. The Soviet outlook still allowed for the use of violence on the international scale in certain circumstances. Its lack of plans for instigating major warfare at that particular time rested primarily on the peculiarities of a given situation which rendered such an idea unpromising and inexpedient. Were the Western world to fall into a state of military weakness that constituted a direct invitation to cheap and easy aggression, it was quite possible that Soviet thinking might change. Or again, were the political war to progress favorably enough from the Soviet standpoint, it was always possible that a decision might be taken to use the Red Army in the wake of successful political operations, for purposes of giving the decisive push or conducting the mopping-up operations at minor cost. Any drastic alteration in the terms and course of the cold war, either to Soviet advantage or disadvantage, might in fact have operated to alter the Soviet attitude on war.

      Moscow had considered the successful instigation of civil war in a third country as a perfectly fair and acceptable political expedient, which anyone was entitled to get away with if he had the skill and enterprise to do so.
      -- George F. Kennan, U.S. ambassador to Moscow, 1952

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:Orin Hatch doesn't understand the law by themildassassin · · Score: 1

      "Hatch rather reminds me of my ex-wife who believed that anything that made her angry must be against the law and so was inclined to call the police to resolve it."

      There is probably a really funny story that you are leaving out of that aside.

    6. Re:Orin Hatch doesn't understand the law by erroneus · · Score: 1

      It has been over ten years since I last heard anything from her. It's not funny yet. But I am hopeful that with time it will become more funny. She's a dangerous woman and if I hear she died, my immediate reaction will be a special kind of relief.

  30. I know $19k sounds like a lot of money... by mellon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...but it's a drop in the bucket in a senate election. So while I am just as annoyed at Senator Hatch as the next geek, I think accusing him of being bought is probably tactically stupid. First, because it's probably not true. Second, because there's probably another reason he holds this particular position. And third, because he probably actually believes what he's saying.

    There are two ways to get him to stop being such a powerful advocate for copyright interests. One is to get him replaced. The other is to get him to change his mind. Getting him replaced is going to be really, really hard. But by all means, go for it. Only I really doubt the average Utahn is going to vote him out on the basis of his position on copyright, even if they disagree with him. So that's a really big job.

    The other possibility is that you could get him to come around to seeing how much economic damage the RIAA and MPAA positions are doing to our economy. I think that's pretty hard too. But maybe not impossible. But one thing that is impossible is that you will get him to even listen to you if you start talking about how he's blowing the MPAA to get campaign contributions. The electoral system works the way it works. I want it to change as much as you do. But it's not going to change because you make nasty accusations. It's going to change because you work for it, or not at all.

    1. Re:I know $19k sounds like a lot of money... by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The other possibility is that you could get him to come around to seeing how much economic damage the RIAA and MPAA positions are doing to our economy.

      Part of the problem comes from how you think about economics. Some people think, "whatever is very most profitable for the most businesses," is the definition of "good for the economy". Those companies can then hire more people, invest in things, etc. This seems to be the way Hatch is seeing things, and it's not at all uncommon, even among Democrats.

      On the other hand, you might say, "greater efficiency is better for the economy." Cut down on all the red-tape, bureaucracy, and middlemen and it will free up more real wealth to be spent on things that are actually beneficial. You can think of it like a forest fire. We used to prevent small forest fires because they were dangerous, but then we found out that smaller forest fires clear out some excess growth, fertilize the soil, and prevent the next forest fire from getting too out of control. Similarly, allowing some economic destruction can clear out bad business models, free up capital for better investments, and prevent economic downturns from getting quite so ugly.

      Now if you're a believer in the second idea, then you might not be all that interested in protecting our entertainment industry, regardless of how much money they're making. Online distribution means much less waste. There's no packaging, no transportation costs, no storage/shelving costs, and no waste of unsold products. It's a much more efficient model, which is an economic boon whether or not these particular businesses can figure out how to profit from it.

      Either way, I'm a bit uneasy about the implication that our economy is reliant on our entertainment industry. It'd be nice if our economy was built on actual production of goods, and not on copyright enforcement.

    2. Re:I know $19k sounds like a lot of money... by kilgortrout · · Score: 1
      $19k may not sound like a lot but how does $96k reported received by Sen. Hatch from "TV/Movies/Music" industry sound:

      http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2010&cid=n00009869&type=I&mem=

      Especially when the largest industry group contributor, Lawyers/Law Firms, was only $426k and law firms are frequently proxies for the industry clients they serve. In addition, the largest single contributor to Sen Hatch's campaign, Xango LLC, a multilevel marketing outfit located in Utah, was only $46k. Given these facts, and all the soft money that never gets reported, $19k is more than enough to buy influence with a US senator.

    3. Re:I know $19k sounds like a lot of money... by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      I know $19k sounds like a lot of money... ...but it's a drop in the bucket in a senate election.
      I think accusing him of being bought is probably tactically stupid. First, because it's probably not true.

      There is more to the story. I don't have the time to dig up links, maybe someone else can. But essentially Hatch has done a 180 on copyright issues over the past decade or so. Roughly coincident with his change in attitude was the publication of a "vanity" album of him singing which was reportedly completely funded by an RIAA member publisher.

      So yes, I do think it is true that he is bought and paid for in the sense that his public opinion radically changed over a relatively short period of time that involved some questionable events.

    4. Re:I know $19k sounds like a lot of money... by syousef · · Score: 1

      One is to get him replaced. The other is to get him to change his mind. Getting him replaced is going to be really, really hard.

      Actually not so hard as you might think, depending on how far you're willing to go, which is of and in itself a problem. The real trouble is that getting him replaced accomplishes nothing if he's replaced with someone else who can be paid to hold the same opinion.

      The other possibility is that you could get him to come around to seeing how much economic damage the RIAA and MPAA positions are doing to our economy. I think that's pretty hard too. But maybe not impossible.

      You don't need to convince him of anything. You need to have deeper pockets and give him more money than these people are offering. That's not even remotely possible.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  31. Is Hatch a capitalist or aristocrat? by fermion · · Score: 3, Insightful
    People complain that we are going socialist, but how long has Hatch been in office, and how long has he been shouting these socialist ideals. Sure someone, somewhere might be losing all that money, but who cares! Look at how much money Chrysler lost, Than god we live a more or less capitalist economy, so even though they could take away tax money to throw after bad, at least Hatch did not have the power to force me to buy an American Car, though by his statements I am sure he would have wanted to.

    If someone is losing money, it is not because someone else is stealing it. It is because the product is not competitive. If an album is not selling, it is not because of piracy, it is because it is not competitive. Either enough money has not been spent on marketing, or it is priced too high, or it is too hard to get. How many of us pay more to get milk from the corner store. How many of us would pay that same high price at the big grocery stores. Recorded music still has value, just not the value it did. I am sure Mr. Hatch is confused to why a audio tape manufacturers are not making as much as they did, and probably wanted to a bailout to help them. Under his logic, I could build a fishing pole, sell it for a while, then make it more expensive or reduce the quality, then claim that pirates have stolen my design and I need the feds help.

    Although economics is not a zero sum game, one person does sometimes get rich at the expense of another, or at least that is the perception. The music industry is currently in an uproar that it cannot extort more money from the radio stations. Sure the music industry provides the raw materials, but it is the radio station that adds value. What I would like to see an end to compulsory licensing. They could use a bid based system, you know, we will play you album on the station only if you charge this much and no more. Oh, you want the money you used to get, won't happen. Not in a capitalist market.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:Is Hatch a capitalist or aristocrat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought he was an AristoRat (TM) , soon to be a major motion picture somewhere...

    2. Re:Is Hatch a capitalist or aristocrat? by dkleinsc · · Score: 2, Informative

      these socialist ideals

      Where the heck did you get the idea that the ideas Sen Hatch was espousing were socialist? They aren't: Socialism advocates the collective ownership of property, which in the world of so-called intellectual property would be something along the lines of Creative Commons.

      No, the word you might have been looking for was "fascist", "corporatist", or "plutocratic".

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:Is Hatch a capitalist or aristocrat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And who do you think owns the copyright. The author, the inventor, the artist? I think not. The RIAA member companies own the copyright, and most of these are owned by whom? A collective called the stockholders. The collective, as you surmise, need not be the government. In fact it is the socialism of the copyright is arguable the main problem. If a copyright is owned by a human person, and is somehow linked to that human person natural lifetime, then we do not have the issue of virtual copyright into perpetuity. Such building of an aristocracy, a class of non productive persons suckig off the those who do the work, is the hallmark of socialism. OTOH, the collective commons might be a proper use of socialism, as it does not drain resources from those who do create product to those who do not.

      We do not need fancy words to describe a simple concept. Hatch is a socialist. He believes that a select group of people should own all the means of production, so they may profit and others cannot. This is the only reason to support the insane copyright laws. This is the only reason we would be afraid of computers. In a non-socialist economy, the collectives that are not successful would be allowed to fail. (It is true that anyone can enter a collective, if they have the expendable cash or credit)

  32. Bad Science by nickovs · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As ever, the media companies are deploying insupportable statistics. Most of the numbers for 'lost revenue' are coming form multiplying 'estimates' for the number of files shared by the recommended retail price of the shared item, which makes the huge leap of believing that every single download that the RIAA thinks happened represents a lost sale that otherwise would have taken place. This assumption is not only naive but studies have shown that people who download music for free also buy more music. In the UK the government is basing policies on similarly erroneous information bought and paid for by the media companies. In that particular case the 'academic study' got it's numbers for lost revenue from an industry press release...

    --
    If intelligent life is too complex to evolve on its own, who designed God?
  33. As always follow the money....... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 5, Informative

    Orrin Hatch has taken over $96,000 From the TV/Movies/Music lobby already.

    1. Re:As always follow the money....... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      In all honesty, that isn't very much. Considering all the talking he is doing for them, he is going way beyond the call of duty. He got way more from Computer/Internet related companies.

      --
      Qxe4
    2. Re:As always follow the money....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      follow the money...

      unless its a democrat.

      yeah yeah, offtopic, whatever.

  34. Addendum by TropicalCoder · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just a snippet from the blog cited above...

    ...it would be worth reminding U.S. officials that Canada is compliant with its international copyright obligations. In recent years, it responded to U.S. pressure by becoming one of the few countries to enact anti-camcording legislation. The RCMP has prioritized intellectual property cases and the law contains tough statutory damages provisions that are regularly used by rights holders to obtain significant judgments. In fact, some of Canada's copyright rules are more restrictive than those found south of the border.

    Moreover, grouping Canada together with high-piracy nations does not stand up to even mild scrutiny. The Business Software Alliance's 2008 statistics show that among the eleven other countries on this year's Priority Watch List for which data is available, the lowest rate of software piracy is 66 percent. By comparison, Canada stands at 32 percent, not remotely close to any other country on the list. In fact, Canada's software piracy rate is lower than all 46 countries named in the Special 301 report.

    Similarly, 2008 data from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency on intellectual property seizures reports that Taiwan and South Korea rank fourth and fifth as sources of seized goods (China is number one), yet both were dropped this year from the Watch List. By comparison, Canada does not even appear in the rankings.

    [Canadian] Officials should not sit idly by as the U.S. unfairly tarnishes Canada's reputation.

    1. Re:Addendum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "[Canadian] Officials should not sit idly by as the U.S. unfairly tarnishes Canada's reputation."

      Because one unpopular Senator = The Whole U.S.

    2. Re:Addendum by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      [Canadian] Officials should not sit idly by as the U.S. unfairly tarnishes Canada's reputation.

      I agree with that. Start throwing the real numbers out there, politicians! Hell, if people could start seeing the US government as spewing bullshit on this topic, other governments might be a little more cautious in dealing with them. After all, Canada's pretty heavily entwined with America's economy, and if the US is willing to trashtalk us with no basis in reality, what's to stop them from doing worse to some country they have fewer ties with?

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    3. Re:Addendum by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Americans constantly defame Canada.

      And that's why now you can't cross the border without a passport.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    4. Re:Addendum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can by car/boat with an enhanced drivers license (one with a rfid chip)

    5. Re:Addendum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Canadian] Officials should not sit idly by as the U.S. unfairly tarnishes Canada's reputation.

      Your point is well taken, but Hatch only represents Utah. (Sorry, people from Utah.)

      (Now that the slavery issue has been settled pretty well, I think it's a good time to bring back states' rights, starting with a subtle campaign of pedanticism, using state pride to attack the federalist position!)

  35. What "Buys" Hatch? by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Funny

    I bet it was the free Metallica tickets for life. Hatch rules the mosh pit.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  36. How do they calculate that # of jobs? by amigabill · · Score: 1

    I'd love to understand their algorithm for determining that 373,375 American jobs are affected by this.

  37. don't forget Hatch was chair of Judiciary Committe by Uberbah · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...so this is even more pathetic. But then this is the same Hatch that helped block 60 of Clintons judicial nominees, only to have his party threaten to blow up the Senate if the Democrats didn't give an "upordown" vote for all of Bushs nominees. Now of course that a Dem is back in the White House, the GOP is threatening to filibuster Obamas picks before he's even made them.

  38. "373,375 jobs" Each year? Big fucking deal by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We've lost 1 million jobs each month due to our corporate and government corruption (same damn thing if you ask me).

    We cant be a nation of film makers and muscians. Its not going to float this sinking economy. The real problem is greed, corruption, outsourcing, our law makers bending over backwards for those that would sell out America at every opportunity.

    Downloading a shitty movie here and there that still makes 200 million in profit, is not costing us that much.

    There are far bigger problems, and i find it hysterical that Oren Hatch (who is part of the problem) is acting as if some how the pirate bay is more significant than health care or the economy.

    Perhaps more people are pirating stuff because they can no longer afford to LIVE in the country Oren Hatch supposedly represents. Thanks Oren you fucking tool.

    Every one of these politicians live like kings in these "tough economic times"

    Give me a break. Fuck off and DO SOMETHING FOR THE PEOPLE FOR ONCE!!!!!!

    1. Re:"373,375 jobs" Each year? Big fucking deal by ErikTheRed · · Score: 1

      Give me a break. Fuck off and DO SOMETHING FOR THE PEOPLE FOR ONCE!!!!!!

      Or better yet, don't do something for "the people." Everytime they claim to be doing something for us they actually wind up doing something to us. You'd be better off truncating your request to just "fuck off."

      --

      Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
    2. Re:"373,375 jobs" Each year? Big fucking deal by SoulRider · · Score: 1

      Aww, it makes it look like he is doing something important (fighting the baby killing pirates) and gets him re-elected. All without really having to do anything but take soft money from an industry that gives nothing back to his home state. Shouldnt we be questioning his constintuency instead? Who are these clueless people who seem to have no idea what a tool their senator is? And shouldnt we be educating them?

  39. It often is a loss, and here's why by MikeRT · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If someone download a movie, game or song doesn't mean they would have paid for it if they couldn't. So those loss calculations are wrong

    You're absolutely right that it doesn't mean they would have paid for it. A lot of pirates might not even be able to pay for it. However, the availability of piracy as an option skews the whole thing wildly. We don't know what people would do if piracy weren't an option. It very well might be possible that the sales of games and movies might be significantly higher. Again, we won't know because people can just copy anything they don't feel like buying or budgeting for.

    1. Re:It often is a loss, and here's why by Lovedumplingx · · Score: 1

      That's not true at all.

      We know what people DID before piracy and that was not see the film, hear the music, or play the game.

      But the converse of the argument is that everyone is still subjected to the wanton product placements and blatant advertising in products these days. Producers of these things should still be happy that they're getting advertising revenue from these products because even though piracy may take a meager sum from them they probably made most of that back by shoving products down everyone's throats both users and pirates alike.

    2. Re:It often is a loss, and here's why by grepya · · Score: 4, Informative

      In other news, unchecked air-breathing by the earth's entire population costs governments trillions of dollars of lost revenue, billions of air-accounting jobs and millions of death by old age.
        The free availability of air to anyone with the simple capability to just *SUCK IT IN* willy-nilly skews the whole thing wildly. We don't know what people would do if wanton free-for-all air-breathing weren't an option. It very well might be possible that the accounting and sale of air (by the gallons) would create huge revenues for government and private businesses. Again, we don't know because people can just... you know... inhale and exhale at will.

    3. Re:It often is a loss, and here's why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that 'piracy', or as I like to call it 'making a copy' has always been around. People have always 'pirated' anything they could get their hands on. I've heard the entire cloth industry of the early United States owes its existence to machine designs 'pirated' from England. Early recorded music was not pirated simply because it was so difficult to do, but the sheet music was constantly copied. Even the bands themselves were 'pirated' with musicians touring different parts of the United States under the names of famous bands. Early movies were constantly 'pirated' with projectionists and movie-house managers making prints of the movies for their other theaters or selling them.
      It is only since the introduction of cheap recording devices and media that 'pirating' recorded music and movies has become affordable to the masses. Remember the cassette tape? Record companies wanted to ban devices that could copy records to tape or even record from the radio. VHS brought the exact same outcry with several attempts to ban tape-to-tape recorders. Then CDs came out and shortly after the wide-spread use of PCs. The record companies slit their own throats when they failed to shift to a new media that couldn't be copied using a PC. And the movie companies WALKED RIGHT INTO IT with DVDs.
      'Pirating' has always been around and it will always be around and yet record companies and movie studios still managed to make tons of money. They won't be happy now until they can make a CD or a DVD a cheaply as possible and have anyone who dares to copy it arrested.

    4. Re:It often is a loss, and here's why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmmm internet piracy really hasn't been around for that long. say mainstream pirating has been going on for about 8 years and tack on maybe 5-6 more years for the ramp up stage. that gives us 14 years piracy has been around, yet all these people and industries getting hurt by the pirates are still around too. but to get back to where I was going I'm sure the companies have access to their sales figures from back then in some form or another. with that info we could get a pretty good idea how much piracy *hurts* the music and movie industries. now if only we had some figures on quality of product. --- I believe this is the main issue. These companies are only interested in a fast buck and only make products out of a sub-par cookie cutter. And the decline began before Pirates.

      P.S. off topic, but I really really hate the stupid little image verification POS before the submit. It at least needs a refresh option. I have entered the exact lettering combo 1/2 a dozen times and I get a fail.

    5. Re:It often is a loss, and here's why by DrLang21 · · Score: 1

      This is why our national debt is so bad. Let's not forget the freeloaders Mexico and Canada who steal our air when it blows into their country.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    6. Re:It often is a loss, and here's why by pjt33 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I heard Bill Clinton doesn't inhale. Maybe they could use him as a case study...

    7. Re:It often is a loss, and here's why by geekoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Thuis is why you look at trends and otehr impacts.

      Is the entertainment still tracking higher then the economy in terms of revenue?
      And this is revenue, not profit.

      Meaning, the economy tanks 10% and the entertainment industry tanks 8% then it's not ding that bad.
      Does it also track with other consumer good reletive to history?

      When those factors are accounted for, then you will ahve an idea on how piracy is impacting the industry.

      Studies like that were done a few years ago, but the entertainment industry was doing better then expected. Other factors were leanng towards piracy helping sale by increasing word of mouth.

      Just looking at the last 10 years, it seems pretty clear that it is not having the impact they claim becasue there really wouldn't be any industry left.

      Economists and accountants know how to do this, it's not magic it just takes knowledge and smarts.
      The studies the trot out, to the best of my knowledge, have been extremely poor studies.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:It often is a loss, and here's why by ojustgiveitup · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We don't know what people would do if piracy weren't an option. It very well might be possible that the sales of games and movies might be significantly higher.

      We don't know what people would do if piracy weren't an option. It very well might be that the sales of games and movies might be significantly lower.

      I'm not gonna say "fixed that for you" because it could be either your way or my way based on the evidence in your post. If you're going to say something like "we have no idea", you can't then posit that one thing "might very well be" without recognizing that the other thing could also very well be. If you think one way is more likely than the other, then you have to say why that is.

    9. Re:It often is a loss, and here's why by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      That's a marketing problem, not a legal one.

      I bought all MC Frontalot's albums last week, even though I could easily have downloaded them for free.

      Why?

      1. I'm not morally against giving MC Frontalot money. Not so with the RIAA.
      2. I think the artist will get the majority of the money I paid. Not so with the RIAA.
      3. I want to feel all smug and superior. Can't feel that paying the RIAA.
      4. He asked me to, nicely. Not so with the RIAA.

      I've spent thousands in the past year on copyrighted material, but only in cases like these where it feels valuable for me to, and where I'm not morally opposed to giving the organization responsible money.

      Publishers need to start realising they're hurting themselves by making a direct correlation between "buy product" and "have democratic process circumvented to my extreme disadvantage with my own money". I'm not giving them money so they can hire jackbooted thugs to beat me up, and I'm not giving them money so they can hack my computer for their benefit when I pop in their CD, and I'm not giving them money so they can have the FBI threaten me.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    10. Re:It often is a loss, and here's why by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Your comment has me so flustered! I'll need a cool, refreshing bottle of ice cold Coca Cola Classic to recover! Your comment is whack, but you can't beat the real thing -- of Coca Cola Classic!

      --
      It's been a long time.
    11. Re:It often is a loss, and here's why by Sj0 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      We'll never get a case study as long as Barry is in power. Not only does he say he inhales, he says "That was the point."

      God damn those leftist bastards.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    12. Re:It often is a loss, and here's why by LandDolphin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Then hopefully you are doing the responsible thing and boycotting their artists and not doing the selfish thing of downloading their material for free.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    13. Re:It often is a loss, and here's why by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      I've got 40-something nerdy rap songs to swim through. Who has time to set up spyware-laden crap to download something from the Mammon?

      --
      It's been a long time.
    14. Re:It often is a loss, and here's why by vivaelamor · · Score: 1

      Why would downloading stuff for free be selfish? If you were not planning on buying it anyway then worst case scenario.. exactly the same thing happens as if you'd boycotted it. Best case scenario, you realise how much better the material is than you expected and start supporting that artist.

      This anti-sharing mantra that abstaining from copying while not buying stuff is somehow pro-artist is really bizarre. To me it seems more selfish to refuse to listen to an artists work just because you don't like their record label, in fact it seems downright spiteful.

      Maybe I live in a different reality and in yours a kitten dies every time you listen to something you didn't pay for.

    15. Re:It often is a loss, and here's why by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      Nit pic the word if you want. Maybe Selfish was a poor word to use. But lets not focus on semantics, lets focus on meaning, ok?

      If you don't want to pay for music/movies/etc. for reasons X, Y, or Z, then don't use them. Companies/Artists/etc. produced them, and within our society they own the rights to them. If you feel that it should not be this way, then work towards changing the laws. And no, your downloading the files is not akin to the protestign done for Civil Rights.

      Pro-Artist is buying their stuff if you want it, or gettign it for free if they make it available for free. If they did not make it available to you for free, then one can only assume that they do not want you to have it for free. Of course, this is complicated by the fact that Artist sell their rights to the music. But then, they don't won it any more and there is a social responisbility to respect the owner.

      So the Pro-Artist mantra is, if you want it buy it. Else, listen to it in the free format they provide (radio, etc.). But don't infringe on their copyrights.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    16. Re:It often is a loss, and here's why by vivaelamor · · Score: 1

      Nit pic the word if you want. Maybe Selfish was a poor word to use. But lets not focus on semantics, lets focus on meaning, ok?

      I would sincerely like to hear what you think selfish means if it doesn't mean putting yourself before others. Regardless, selfishness describes intention not action and copyright infringement is an action, the intent can be anything.

      If you don't want to pay for music/movies/etc. for reasons X, Y, or Z, then don't use them. Companies/Artists/etc. produced them, and within our society they own the rights to them. If you feel that it should not be this way, then work towards changing the laws. And no, your downloading the files is not akin to the protestign done for Civil Rights.

      Why? Because it's the 'right thing (tm)' to do? This may come as a shock to you but I'm quite capable of thinking for myself and don't see the point in adhering to a law that was written many years before I was born when I don't even agree with it. I don't download stuff as a protest, I download stuff because I want to. It'd only be a protest if I was risking punishment.

      Pro-Artist is buying their stuff if you want it, or gettign it for free if they make it available for free. If they did not make it available to you for free, then one can only assume that they do not want you to have it for free. Of course, this is complicated by the fact that Artist sell their rights to the music. But then, they don't won it any more and there is a social responisbility to respect the owner.

      I support artists who I like, and I use file sharing to make sure that I support those artists to the best of my ability rather than wasting money on less deserving artists. If doing the right thing happens to violate copyright.. so what?

      So the Pro-Artist mantra is, if you want it buy it. Else, listen to it in the free format they provide (radio, etc.). But don't infringe on their copyrights.

      I guess my pro-artist mantra would be, if an artist is worth supporting, throw money at them at every opportunity. If a law gets in the way of doing that for no good reason, fuck it.

    17. Re:It often is a loss, and here's why by beav007 · · Score: 1
      The problem that I have with these estimates is the apparent assumed 100% conversion rate - if you downloaded it, you definitely would have bought it. This assumption is patently false. For example, it wouldn't be particularly uncommon to find a 15 year old with 50 downloaded movies on his/her computer. In Australia, it's about $40 per standard-release DVD. Are you really telling me that, if this 15 year old was unable to download movies, he/she(/it?) would have found $2000 to spend on DVDs?

      For me to find industry-wide and case-specific loss estimations of this kind useful in any way whatsoever, the estimator must prove that each movie would have been bought from the shelves or watched at the movies rather than:
      • Bought second-hand
      • Watched on TV
      • Borrowed from a friend
      • Borrowed from a video library (Blockbuster/Civic/Netflix etc)
      • ignored completely
      • Bought legitimately and either damaged, stolen or lost

      How many people do you know that have downloaded a movie, then not had time, or got a bad review from someone, or simply said "meh", and deleted it unwatched? I know a few.

      The above counts for music, ebooks and cheap hard-copy pirated movies as well.

      The place where the real money is lost is movies that are made available online (by whatever means) before it officially opens in any specific country. You can realistically argue that there is a higher percentage of loss before the movie is released because fewer people are spending money to find out how crap each new release is. And crap or not, fewer people feel the need to see the movie a second time at the cinema.

      Of course, the dumbasses could release the movies in a synchronised fashion around the world instead of making use wait up to 6 months after the US release before we get it. That would fix half the problem...

    18. Re:It often is a loss, and here's why by Archades54 · · Score: 1

      They love to spout fictitious money to try rally people into supporting them. Their total loss is $0.00. People didn't want to buy it, didn't have the money too, and oh wow look, they didn't buy it. If they wanted to buy it they would have gotten a sale, they need to quit worrying bout these magical lost sales in terms of profit and wonder why people choose to download their stuff instead of purchasing it.

      --
      If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
    19. Re:It often is a loss, and here's why by Archades54 · · Score: 1

      You can download for free and boycott them at the same time, they aren't getting your money. However they still benefit from getting out there and heard by more people.

      --
      If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
    20. Re:It often is a loss, and here's why by greed · · Score: 1

      It's worse than that. ars technica looked in to some of the numbers, and found that some of them derive from numbers that are cited because they are cited. There's some basis in a survey about losses due to "inadequate protection", and some estimates from that. But newer stuff which uses those reports drops all the contexts, jumps to the high end of estimated ranges, and so on.

      So, every single number Mr. Hatch says needs to be suffixed with "[citation needed]".

  40. Hey Hatch F-OFF you industry Whore. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Publish more bullshit in the hope that it sticks just because Canada doesn't rubber stamp the changes US media giants want to existing Canadian legislation... Just F-OFF and while your at it find another supplier of energy for the US, Canada is your #1 supplier. Find someone else to fight in Afghanistan, Canada has been there willingly and very fucking effectively since day one. Even after your trigger happy fucking cowboy pilots dropped bombs on Canadian troops on exercises in a clearly marked and advertised training area... Hatch please just fuck off. Sorry for the rant folks.

  41. "In this troubled economy..." by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Good god. #1 The banks and investment firms that didn't get involved in the mortgage backed securities nonsense are doing JUST FINE. And it appears that the real problem is the phony money that is being made in the markets. If the U.S. had the same strong manufacturing base that we once had, we would not be nearly as affected as we have been. All of our manufacturing is sent overseas and now our value is is based on how much money we move around. And when the markets crash, the value of our money crashes right along with it. So then what do we have to rebuild with? Not much. That's why we are seeing cars of all types being sold at 50% or more off MSRP today.

    And here's the kicker -- we know what the causes are and have been. Nothing has been done to prevent it from happening again. They want to prop things back up and get back to partying like it was 1999.

    1. Re:"In this troubled economy..." by m509272 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, 1999, that would be when Bill Clinton was running the show. You know, make it law that everyone can "buy" a house even though they can't afford it. Everyone should buy stock in companies that don't actually sell anything. Let people do whatever they want, let the good times roll......

  42. The good senator... by uffe_nordholm · · Score: 2

    The good senator may have missed a few points about the Pirate Bay trial.

    Firstly, the guilty verdict has been appealed. I don't think we are likely to see the Swedish Supreme Court pass sentence for a good many years yet. And before the Supreme Court hands out a sentence, I don't think you should consider the matter settled. In fact, even after the Swedish Supreme Court, the accused might appeal to the European court (I'm not sure they have the legal possibility, but they might, and if so I think they will take it).

    Secondly, the judge is suspected of being biased, and because of this the trial might be declared invalid. The reason this suspicion has arisen is that the judge is a member of two organisations whose purpose it is to strengthen copyright and/or trademark (or similar) protection. Among the other members of at least one of these organisations are the legal representatives for the plaintiffs.

    If the trial is declared void, it might be a few years before we get a sentence again.

    1. Re:The good senator... by SoulRider · · Score: 1

      You dont understand these people, it doesnt matter what happens after the original verdict. Its all about perception to them. Yes the trial was a OMG pony show, but the RIAA and MPAA will milk the original verdict for years. It doesnt matter if the judge is found to have taken bribes and goes to jail. You watch, the fallout from the trial will get little to no press whatsoever. all they cared about was getting the original verdict and showmanship (remember what industry we are talking about). That judge will probably learn an important lesson about dancing with the devil and then die in obscurity, like so many musicians and actors before.

    2. Re:The good senator... by uffe_nordholm · · Score: 1

      While it does not affect this (or any other) senator, I think the MPAA/RIAA should be a bit carefull about making too much noice about this first trial and verdict.

      Suppose the MPAA/RIAA go about, for years, telling anyone who will listen (or can't avoid hearing) that TPB were sent to prison for aiding copyright infringement. So far , so good. But what could happen if they get declared innocent in the Swedish Supreme Court? Suddenly lots of people would have reason to start sharing files, more out of spite than because they really need/want to.

      If, however, the MPAAA/RIAA were a bit more cautious, and publicly admitted that there is not a final verdict yet, they would have a better chance of not irritating those who would otherwise become tomorrows file sharers.

      At least, what I have described above is how I react: if told, time and time again, that X is illegal I will refrain from doing it. If then, suddenly, a higher authority says that X is perfectly legal, I will do as much of X as I possibly can, more out of spite than anything else.

  43. The made up statistics of the BSA by TropicalCoder · · Score: 5, Informative

    From Prof. Michael Geist's blog BSA Admits Canadian Software Piracy Rates Estimated; Canada Viewed as Low Piracy Country, the following shows that these statistics are just made up...

    This year the BSA reported that Canada declined from 33 to 32 percent. Michael Murphy, chair of the BSA Canada Committee claimed that "despite the slight decline, Canada's software piracy rate is nowhere near where it should be compared to other advanced economy countries. We stand a better chance of reducing it significantly with stronger copyright legislation that strikes the appropriate balance between the rights of consumers and copyright holders."

    Yet what the BSA did not disclose is that the 2009 report on Canada were guesses since Canadian firms and users were not surveyed. While the study makes seemingly authoritative claims about the state of Canadian piracy, the reality is that IDC, which conducts the study for BSA, did not bother to survey in Canada.

    1. Re:The made up statistics of the BSA by twidarkling · · Score: 4, Informative

      *facepalm*

      "We're just going to completely make shit up, 'cause we can't be bothered to survey Canada. They're just like the US, right? We'll just use the numbers from the US, adjusted for population, and how backwards they are compared to us."

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
  44. Piracy cost more than thier revenue? Wait what? by MasseKid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A quick google search will land you at a link to http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_32/b4045001.htm That article, while talking about pets, states "Americans spend on the movies ($10.8 billion), playing video games ($11.6 billion), and listening to recorded music ($10.6 billion) combined"

    So according to the RIAA and MPAA we spend 33 billion on movies, video games, and music combined but some how piracy is costing the American economy almost twice what it actually spent on that industry? I know they inflate numbers, but this is beyond hyperbole.

    1. Re:Piracy cost more than thier revenue? Wait what? by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Only people over 30 (and mostly over 50) are spending money on music. The people that can't figure out how to use BitTorrent or othre P2P tools to fill up their iPod. iTunes has maybe 2% of the download market today, but they are getting millions of dollars from it - fortunately for these folks it is just about enough to continue operating. Can't sell an iPod without a way to fill it up for these folks.

      The rest of the people, oh maybe 10 times as many, know how to get music for free. When was the last time you bought a CD at WalMart? Ever wonder why they even sell CDs there? Because some people - older people, mostly, are still buying them there. Will you ever buy a CD at WalMart? No? Well, when the older folks that are still buying CDs die off, then CDs will die off as well.

      Until then, you can expect to see music sales continue.

      Movies? When they are as easy to download as music is today, you can assume the DVD rentals will pretty much end. Theater tickets? I don't see movie theaters lasting much beyond the point where they release the DVD the same day tickets go on sale. That will probably be the nail in the coffin for them. This will mean the free download (pirated) will be available a couple of days after that.

      The "movie industry" and the "music industry" are pretty much over. Nobody is going to pay when they do not have to and just about everyone under 30 knows they don't have to. When the older folks give up on it or are locked away in their nursing homes you won't see any more sales and the "industry" will be over and done with.

      Further P2P will be trading everything that has been done 1970-2015 since little of value will be around after that. Oh there will be plenty of amature movies and music will be around and some of it will stand out. Most of it will be utter crap and bury anything that is good.

    2. Re:Piracy cost more than thier revenue? Wait what? by jcnnghm · · Score: 1

      You understand that copyright covers more than just entertainment?

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    3. Re:Piracy cost more than thier revenue? Wait what? by n30na · · Score: 1

      I'm 18, and i can say this is not /completely/ true. Yes, most media I watch is pirate or otherwise, but I don't completely skip out on paying for things.

      If i really like something, especially something obscure where the creator isn't sitting on a pile of cash, i'll do my best to make the effort to buy a copy, just to give back a little. Plus, it can be nice to have a physical copy, though certainly not necessary.

      Also, sometimes i'll go to see a movie in a theater, not even entirely for the movie, but for the fun of it, to do something with a friend or etc. It's not that physical and priced media have no value, it's simply that they aren't worth what they're sold for to most consumers. Piracy is simply the market's response to not buy what it thinks is overpriced.

    4. Re:Piracy cost more than thier revenue? Wait what? by MasseKid · · Score: 1

      "In fact, one study reports that each year, copyright piracy from motion pictures, sound recordings, business and entertainment software, and video games costs the US economy $58 billion in total output" You understand the only thing I didn't include in my numbers was "business and entertainment software" when comparing to his numbers? Somehow I don't see that sector being larger than entertainment, or even close to it. 1,000,000 liscences of photoshop or autocad only amounts to 2 billion in sales, and clearly every college student would have bought his copy of photoshop if he couldn't pirate it.

    5. Re:Piracy cost more than thier revenue? Wait what? by jcnnghm · · Score: 1

      You really think business software is less than entertainment. Get a grip on reality. Your calculated revenue total was $33 Billion. Let's compare that to the 2008 annual revenue of some software companies (I used Wolfram Alpha for this, and it rocked).

      Microsoft: $61.98B
      EMC: $14.88B
      Computer Sciences Corporation: $17.11B
      Oracle: $23.53B
      Accenture: $25.68B
      SAP: $16.31B
      Adobe: $3.6B
      Intuit: $3.1B
      Symantec: $6.22B

      Here is a listing of what Alpha thinks the top 158 software companies are, with some pretty nifty charts too. Here is another website that lists the top 100 software companies by software revenue, which ranges from $48B to $228M. Even if you multiply the lowest by 100, you end up with $22.8B. Do you still think the entertainment business is bigger than the software business?

      Gartner says more than a billion PCs are in use globally, and about 180 million PCs would be replaced in 2008. There are plenty of companies and people that pirate software in the United States, and massive numbers in places like China. The bottom line is, their numbers add up. I wouldn't be too surprised if there numbers are actually a little low.

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    6. Re:Piracy cost more than thier revenue? Wait what? by MasseKid · · Score: 1

      "There are plenty of companies and people that pirate software in the United States, and massive numbers in places like China" Except we aren't talking about china, we are talking about the united states alone. Yes, microsoft made 62 Billion in revnue, however that is world wide not america alone. Big surprise the worlds economy is bigger than Americas. Furthermore, 1 download or 1 chinese bootleg does not mean 1 lost sell. And for the record, I've NEVER seen a company with the resources to purchase SAP pirate it.

    7. Re:Piracy cost more than thier revenue? Wait what? by jcnnghm · · Score: 1

      "There are plenty of companies and people that pirate software in the United States, and massive numbers in places like China"

      Except we aren't talking about china, we are talking about the united states alone.

      Yes, microsoft made 62 Billion in revnue, however that is world wide not america alone. Big surprise the worlds economy is bigger than Americas.

      The title of the article is "Senator Applauds Pirate Bay Trial, Chides Canada". You do realize that Canada and Sweden aren't part of the United States, right? The senator is quoted as saying "ensure that all copyrighted works, both here and abroad, are protected from online theft and traditional physical piracy". Abroad is also generally not recognized as part of the United States, but China is.

      Furthermore, 1 download or 1 chinese bootleg does not mean 1 lost sell.

      That statement is impossible to prove or disprove. If piracy weren't an option, companies would either have to pony up the cash for the product, or do without. Some would certainly start writing checks.

      And for the record, I've NEVER seen a company with the resources to purchase SAP pirate it.

      The company wouldn't but the IT people might. Especially in the case where there are two solutions to a problem, a more expensive package that you can't afford, and a less expensive package. Instead of settling for the package you can afford, you steal the more expensive one. That definitely deprives one of the companies a sale.

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
  45. Re:BSA.... by Random2 · · Score: 1

    that stands for Bull Shit Alliance, right?

    --
    "Our goal each year should be to increase the number of goals we set for ourselves!"
  46. I fear for the world by pembo13 · · Score: 1

    If the USA takes to protecting imaginary property to strongly.

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  47. Down the Hatch by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 2, Informative
    Senator Hatch's position is no surprise. He's been a thorn on personal freedom's side for years, and a complete sellout to the media corporations. Would it surprise you to know that Orrin Hatch endorses having the computer industry build mandatory self-destruct mechanisms in computers, remote controlled by the RIAA?

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/930731/posts

  48. Blame the industry by SilverJets · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When I see a DVD screener of a movie that hasn't been released yet, exactly who is responsible? The industry. Obviously industry insiders are a bigger problem than these morons are willing to admit. Sure, point fingers at everyone else while your own people are stealing the revenue right out from under you.

  49. Ahem. by Pahalial · · Score: 1

    This is a great piece about the Section 301 Report. Basically, this is pure political posturing because we haven't implemented the DMCA - the actual data about piracy and copyright violation does not lend any substance to Canada's placement on that watch list.

    --
    Stuff.
  50. In other news... by grepya · · Score: 1

    .... unchecked air-breathing by the earth's entire population costs governments trillions of dollars of lost revenue, billions of air-accounting jobs and millions of death by old age.
        The free availability of air to anyone with the simple capability to just *SUCK IT IN* willy-nilly skews the whole thing wildly. We don't know what people would do if wanton free-for-all air-breathing weren't an option. It very well might be possible that the accounting and sale of air (by the gallons) would create huge revenues for government and private businesses. Again, we don't know because people can just... you know... inhale and exhale at will.

  51. Sounds like Utah citizens need to wake up.... by Eggplant62 · · Score: 1

    And vote this obvious shill for RIAA/MPAA out of office. His words speak volumes as to which pockets he's funded from.

  52. Dear Senator Orrin Hatch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear Senator Orrin Hatch,

    Suck it

    -Canada

  53. Porno? by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    GamePolitics notes that for his 2006 campaign, Hatch was rented for $7,000 by the RIAA and also got on his knees for $12,640 from the MPAA."

    I think I speak for everyone when I ask "Did they film it?"

  54. everyone is disappointed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He expressed severe disappointment in Canada for showing up on our watch list for piracy next to China and Russia.

    Canada is probably severely disappointed in the USA for the very same reason.

    And the Chinese in themselves, also for the same reason.

  55. Nice twist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    During this time of economic turmoil, we must ensure that all copyrighted works, both here and abroad, are protected from online theft and traditional physical piracy.

    (emphasis mine)
    Wow... just wow.. when was the last time pirates looted ships for copyrighted works?!

  56. Piracy costs jobs? by suffix+tree+monkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I understand that piracy can make someone think they lost money (it is disputable, but there's at least a bit of truth to that claim). However, I have yet to meet a person that was fired (or a company that went down) because the company's product was pirated too much. Naturally I'm not counting cases where the person in question leaked the product herself.

    1. Re:Piracy costs jobs? by cdrguru · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Consumer software can easily fall prey to this. Small software companies really can't afford it when their sales pretty much drop to zero unless they have other products.

      Piracy? Well, lets just call it agressive marketing via warez web sites offering the same or substantially similar products (from the same original publiser) at zero cost.

      The end result of a fairly massive warez-posting campaign where the distributors were using stolen credit cards to purchase products and then posting them for all to freely download was a virtual abandonment of the consumer space. There is no point in trying to market a product when it is being given away.

      Can you compete on support? Well, if it needs that much support nobody is going to use it anyway.

      Competing on doodads in the package? Well, if the whole idea is a downloaded product in the first place it is difficult to differentiate in this way.

      Making the product difficult to redistribute just makes it harder for those that are still paying, however few that might be.

      End result is the pirates win - they have a product they can give away, thus destroying any revenue that might be associated with it. No further development occurs on the product because nobody is going to pay the programmers to work on it. And if the "consumer product" programmers can't fit in to the other products they are out of a job. Sure, people lose their jobs because of piracy. But the pirates are winning the battle for zero-revenue (not necessarily free) software.

  57. 0-day release by Zedrick · · Score: 3, Funny

    Short .nfo:

    cracked by Zedrick in his 34th year of glory. Greetings to all old friends in the Amigascene! Note: Copyright-info removed to fit release in one sentence.

    "Orrin Hatch reminds of putrid old snatch."

    1. Re:0-day release by Sj0 · · Score: 1
      --
      It's been a long time.
  58. Orrin the Loonie Hatch by b4upoo · · Score: 1

    Maybe we should just rename him Booby Hatch! This creep has been on the wrong side of almost every issue since the dawn of time. He is too old, too evil and just plain stupid so naturally he has some power.

  59. Obligatory Snow Crash Reference by RevWaldo · · Score: 1

    I can't believe he admitted it. "After all, US copyright-based industries continue to be one of America's largest and fastest-growing economic sectors."

    When it gets down to it - talking trade balances here - once we've brain-drained all our technology into other countries, once things have evened out, they're making cars in Bolivia and microwave ovens in Tadzhikistan and selling them here - once our edge in natural resources has been made irrelevant by giant Hong Kong ships and dirigibles that can ship North Dakota all the way to New Zealand for a nickel - once the Invisible Hand has taken away all those historical inequities and smeared them out into a broad global layer of what a Pakistani brickmaker would consider to be prosperity - y'know what? There's only four things we do better than anyone else:

    - music
    - movies
    - microcode
    - high-speed pizza delivery


  60. Canada says.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mind your own fucking business and keep your cool-aid to yourself you obviously dirty and sorry excuse for a politician.

  61. Welcome to the restricted states of america... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Canada

    - Seems to be the new Land of the free and the home of the brave!!

  62. "traditional physical piracy" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh really?

  63. Not a Loss -- and other wrong things by jonaskoelker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here are some thoughts about what the summary says:

    After all, US copyright-based industries continue to be one of America's largest and fastest-growing economic sectors

    Let's assume that if it's large, it's important. I guess that if something is important to you, the downfall of anything that opposes it is good. But even at the expense of sane legal systems in other countries? Maybe Orin Hatch should take a word from a party fellow, GWB, about ensuring democracy and Rule of Law in other countries ;-)

    costs the US economy $58 billion in total output, costs American workers 373,375 jobs and $16.3 billion in earnings, and costs federal, state, and local governments $2.6 billion in tax revenue.

    Let's see... the 16.3 billion dollars freed up by not having to be spent on music, I guess people just park them in their bank accounts---right? Or maybe people spend the money elsewhere, so that other people earn the same money (through jobs) and pay taxes off of them.

    This seems awfully hard to measure. I'm sure those who came up with the numbers did their due diligence and did this hard measurement, so that the $16.3e9 figure is the difference between money saved on music and money spent on other stuff.

    But I could be hopelessly naive ;-)

    1. Re:Not a Loss -- and other wrong things by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      Whne they spend the money on "other stuff", that money goes into someone elses pocket and then could be spent again on new stuff. Within a year, the same $1 is spent multiple times and the more times it is spent the better off we all are in theory.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    2. Re:Not a Loss -- and other wrong things by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Our banks would be a hell of a lot more solvent right now if people would park a bit more money in their savings accounts.

      --
      It's been a long time.
  64. Traditional physical piracy?? by Time_Ngler · · Score: 2, Funny

    "...we must ensure that all copyrighted works, both here and abroad, are protected from online theft and traditional physical piracy."

    Yar, mateys... hoist the sails and get the cannons ready. A cargo ship containing 50,000 copies of High School Musical 3 is due to cross our path in a half hours time.

  65. Difference in game sales between PS3 and XBOX 360 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be nice to see the difference of game sales of the same game between the PS3 and XBOX 360. I'm wondering if there is a correlation between the PS3 that can't be hacked for the moment, and the XBOX 360. Does it make a difference ?

  66. Re:$58 billion? Oh... that's the "street value"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, if all file xfers/copies ended now, we would see $58 billion pumped into the US economy and 373,000 jobs created.

    WOW.

    I don't see how anyone would pirate files any more. ;->

  67. Ahh, now I know how to make a lot of money... by polemistes · · Score: 1

    I just decide that the breath I exhale should be my property, and therefore anyone using it after me should pay as much as I decide it's worth. There's just one catch.. First I must become the most powerful nation on earth, so I can force all other nations to see the fairness in this rule.
    I'm sure the only reason Britain hasn't yet asked for royalties on the world wide use of the English language, is that they're not the most powerful nation.
    --
    Asking people to pay for something that is free to reproduce is something that will only work in a totalitarian regime. Go and find better business models, that's the only solution for the future.

  68. The job calculations moreso by JerryLove · · Score: 1

    Even looking at real losses (the person who would have baught the movie), certainly not all of those profits would go into hiring more people to do more work. In many cases, they represent better incomes for stock-holders and those who have residuals.

    Also: It's not like the person who didn't spend $25 on that BluRay (likely manufacturered in China) is going to set the money on fire. He will spend it somewhere else.

    Buying movies legitemately may cost jobs too.

    1. Re:The job calculations moreso by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      A $ can be spent multiple times. The concept is that if people paid for all of thier music, sure they would spend less elsewhere. But, those $ would not disapear, they would then be spent again and again and again. So the new jobs being made with the money spent on music would be able to be spent on the thing that it is being spent on now. the same $1 is spen multiple times within a year.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
  69. Me too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It really disgusted me when Orrin Hatch called a Judicial Committee Hearing on BYU campus with Shawn Fanning right before his re-election when Napster was popular.

    Basically he kissed Fannings butt to get college student votes and he used tax payer dollars to do it.

    The guy is so slimy.

  70. my interpretation... by rilian4 · · Score: 1

    "...costs American workers 373,375 jobs and $16.3 billion in earnings, and costs federal, state, and local governments $2.6 billion in tax revenue."

    "After all, US copyright-based industries continue to be one of America's largest and fastest-growing economic sectors."

    So one of the fastest growing yet losing 373k jobs? ooooook...
    I actually buy "one of the fastest growing..." part. The emergence of online content has been a massive boon to all content sellers whether they want to admit it or not.

    The real reason he's yakking is: "...and costs federal, state, and local governments $2.6 billion in tax revenue.". You can't tax it if its free...interesting concept.

    moving along...
    " GamePolitics notes that for his 2006 campaign, Hatch was rented for $7,000 by the RIAA and also got on his knees for $12,640 from the MPAA." That's not a heck of lot of money for a campaign contribution coming from the filthy rich RI/MP AAs but I guess it still shows a conflict of interest, even if it is small.. I will state for the record that I do not condone piracy but I am in favor of a content model where consumers can get music and movies on demand a reduced price or for free in return for watching ads (hulu-esque). I find modern DRM distasteful as I buy all my movies and I can't make backups legally. -rilian

    --

    ...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
  71. What are Significant digits? Anyone? Anyone? by paulsnx2 · · Score: 1

    You have 58 billion in total output (2 digits) costing American workers 373,375 jobs (6 digits), 16.3 billion in earnings (3 digits) and 2.6 billion in tax revenue (2 digits).

    Already we find ourselves wondering what kind of math skills are involved, without looking at the bogus research behind them. 373,375 jobs ?!!?! Really? Not 373,374? Not 373,376? If that is true, then we have to assume there is a fairly detailed breakdown carrying 6 digits of accuracy down from the 58.0000 billion in total output (i.e. if you only have two digits to begin with, you don't get more later.... THAT means the starting figure has to have AT LEAST 6 digits, and more likely 9 or 10 to nail this down to such an exact job count).

    So that makes us wonder what fraction of the 58 billion account for these 373,375. The trick is to look at the TAXES. We know because they told us that 2.6 billion is going to go to taxes. But that is only 4.4 percent of 58 billion! That is federal, state, and local taxes! And that HAS to be spot on if they are so accurate with the job count!

    But they also claimed the 58 billion includes 16.3 billion in earnings. We gotta assume most of that accounts for the 2.6 billion in taxes. But that is only 15.9 percent of the earnings!?! I don't quite understand how they are keeping their tax rates so low, unless they are piping that money offshore. In which case, one has to wonder about that.

    ANY way you slice these figures, not much income tax can be assumed, or that tax number would be MUCH bigger.

    Now the only way I can figure cutting down the income tax is by assuming low paying jobs. So let's guess their analysis assumes 20K per year per job. That comes to about 7.4 billion.

    That leaves 34.3 billion on the table. Where does that go? Expenses? But IF all that goes to expenses, doesn't that imply jobs created in addition to the 373,375 jobs quoted? A massive error perhaps?

    The numbers just don't add up. And what kind of Senator would repeat them when they are so clearly junk?

  72. Close your own hatch first by Ektanoor · · Score: 1

    Really, what Senator Hatch should do first is to take care of its own pirates like McColo, InterCage and alikes, who cost billions of dollars for millions of people all around the world. American Pirates who specially care to attack hundreds of thousands of russian sites stealing resources AND traffic with specialized trojans, semi-automatic robots and unique viruses.

    Maybe russian taxpayers don't have billions of dolars to show Senator Hatch the cost of what american pirates do here. But I am pretty sure that many american citizens still can endure tens of billions of dolars, which does not happen to many russian citizens. Because for many of them, the cost of a high-tech McColo attack runs frequently from 1/3 to 5 times their monthly salaries. There are small companies here that went burned from something that originated in USA. Yes, playing absolute numbers is SOOOOOO COOOL. Watch the effects first, before crying wolf.

    So many thanks for Senator Hatch to refer Canada, China and Russia as being in the top of US's Piracy watch-list. For us, it is YOU who are in the top!

  73. American Imperial Entertainment Media by Petrini · · Score: 1

    Music, movies, and microcode. Every so often, I wonder what Mr. Stephenson drinks, and where I can get some.

  74. I wonder... by n30na · · Score: 1

    If i pirate something to see if i like it, and then buy it because I do, do I count as a lost sale to them?

  75. Not to defend him... but... by VoxMagis · · Score: 1

    He made a speech at the 'World Copyright Forum' in favor of copyrights and anti-piracy.

    A politician is invited to give a speech somewhere BECAUSE they expect him/her to provide the viewpoint they want.

    Opening a bus station? Bet who ever shows up talks about public transportation.
    A factory? Jobs
    Aircraft Carrier? Defense
    School? Education

    I am NOT agreeing with or defending Mr. Hatch. I am simply pointing out that a politician is invited for a reason AND chooses to attend for a reason, and those two things rarely combine to create some incredible spark of reality.

    --
    -- I really need to bleed off some of this /. karma.
  76. Canadian/American Statistics by camperdave · · Score: 1

    Culturally Canadians and Americans are pretty much the same. Sure, we have two languages on our cerial boxes and real sugar in our soft drinks, and sure some of us like our french fries covered in cheese curds and gravey, but despite that there's not much difference between your average Canadian and your average American. So, considering that Canada has roughly one tenth of the population that the US has, there is a certain amount of justification to the age old heuristic for translating back and forth between Canadian statistics and American statistics: Multiply (or divide) By Ten.

    So, having said that, whatever pirating numbers you may have for Canada, multiply them by ten and you'll get the pirating numbers for the US. In other words Piracy is TEN TIMES WORSE in the US than it is in Canada!!

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  77. I agree with Hatch. And furthermore, by aussersterne · · Score: 1

    the abhorrent failure of every American taxpayer to send me $10.00 costs the United States nearly 50,000 jobs per year. (Assuming that I would employ as many people as possible at $18,000 per year--well above the federal poverty level--and keep only $700 million or so for myself).

    Let's stop this travesty immediately and put another 50,000 people to work. If you're a taxpayer, be sure to send me $10! Meanwhile, I really think that the courts and congress should look into this economic disaster!

    --
    STOP . AMERICA . NOW
  78. It's funny by sheldon · · Score: 1

    Prior to 2003, Orin Hatch was frequently heralded here on /. as a great defender of consumer rights because he was always bashing on Hilary Rosen.

    Then suddenly when they replaced Rosen with Mitch Bainwol, Hatch changed his tune. Now he was the greatest champion of everything the RIAA asked for.

    One only needs to look up the political affiliations of Rosen and Bainwol to understand why. :-)

  79. Copyright my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm gonna copyright my ass (it's one of a kind) and charge the Music and Film industry 5 bucks to kiss it. I'm sick of paying for cd's that only have that one good single on it to find out the rest is crap. I want to sample it first.

  80. Orrin Hatch is a Mormon, oops I mean a Moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Orrin Hatch is a brainwashed Moron who doesn't do any thinking for himself. Having met the man, I can testify that he has lost all ability to empathize. He sees everything in absolute terms of right and wrong. He thinks he has God on his side and so he will never make a misjudgement. The crazy bitch needs to be brought down!

  81. 373,375 jobs by introspekt.i · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's a lot of gaffers and grips.

  82. A silly strategy by tjstork · · Score: 1

    One has to wonder how it is that a Republican Party that complains so often about the media and the arts world should bend over backwards so much to defend them. Do we Republicans really think that Barbara Streisand is going to cry in love for us if suddenly we help her collect more royalties from the 1970s movies she made? I'd say, cut her off, and cut off copyrights.

    --
    This is my sig.
  83. Should say we lost eleventy kajillion dollars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "In fact, one study reports that each year, copyright piracy from motion pictures, sound recordings, business and entertainment software, and video games costs the US economy $58 billion in total output, costs American workers 373,375 jobs and $16.3 billion in earnings, and costs federal, state, and local governments $2.6 billion in tax revenue"

    From the US department of numbers-and-statistics-I-just-pulled-out-of-my-ass

  84. What do you do with the money you saved? by neo · · Score: 1

    Obviously people who make illegal copies of software, music, and other copyrighted works didn't spend money on them. So what did they spend the money on?

    With Senators spouting that so called 'piracy' has cost X amount of money and taxes, one would assume this money unspent on these pirated items was hoarded. In reality this money is spent on other things. It's spent on foot or rent or cars. Durable goods. Things that can't be copied for (near) zero cost. One might almost assume that durable good manufacturers should be strongly against copyright, as it reduces the amount of money spent on their goods.

    The logic that assumes people who pirate would spontaneously create the wealth required to purchase the items they pirate is one of the great fallacies of the anti-pirate side of the argument. Those "lost" tax dollars are actually collect when the person buys a bicycle or pack of Magic cards. No tax dollars are lost because the money was actually taxed on a different sale. The money could not be spent twice, and hence would not be taxed twice.

    Logic this flawed only makes the argument against piracy flawed.

    This, of course, says nothing about the fact that almost all copyright is an attempt to retrofit property rights on to information. Information is the result of a [i]service[/i]. The result is not property and should treated differently in legal terms.

  85. Back in the day... by dwiget001 · · Score: 1

    ... roughly 28 years ago, when joining the U.S. military, you were asked "Are you or have you been a member of the Communist Party?"

    They should really change that, modernize it to ask:

    "Are you or have you ever been a member of the Democrat or Republican Party?"

    If so, sorry, but you could not possibly keep your oath as a member of the U.S. military to "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic".

  86. Senator Hatch at it again by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

    This crazy old man always siding with his benefactors!

    First let's make one thing clear, applauding miscarriages of justice should be entirely discouraged of U.S. Senators.

    We've already been made aware of the judge in TPB's trial was a member of the content industry's trade organization.

    That's clearly a conflict of interest. It may even be illegal for the judge to have not recused himself.

    So, Senator Hatch should really open his crusty old eyes and realize that what he's doing is hurting America and her people.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  87. Like watching a train wreck in slow-mo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a Canadian I find this all very amusing and scary at the same time.

    It used to be that Canada felt threatened every time the U.S. offered criticism. We used to be proud to have the last "Superpower" next door. Things were pleasant.

    Now we just watch the border turn into a wall as the U.S. becomes more and more protectionist. To top it off people are getting tired of their inward looking and self serving attitude. "If it's good for us, then we will ensure it is good for you". It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

  88. Here he is again by PenguinGuy · · Score: 0

    Hatch is an idiot. The bad thing is thanks to the Repubs here in Utah, anyone that runs against Hatch is pretty much doomed. Orrin Hatch is a very good argument for term limits.

    --
    Computers are like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy.
  89. Eaugh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's been said once, it's been said 1000 effing times.... Just because you don't get $30 on a download DOES NOT MAKE IT A COST.

    It doesn't COST the industry a damn red cent.

    And case in point - Most of my 450+ DVD collection is built out of videos I've bought after downloading the movie.

    You're more at risk of my piracy if I wait for it to come to rental market before showing an interest.

  90. Copyrignt is government intervention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in the free market.

    It also requires that the government tell you what YOU can do with YOUR property.

    Both of which were HUGE in Socialist Russia.

    Oh, and to enforce it means you need to watch ALL the citizens.

    Which was something Stalin had a boner for too.

  91. You think that the USSR didn't do that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you think the Warsaw pact countries had Communist governments? Why do you think they dropped them as soon as they could see that the USSR could no longer enforce their will on their client states?

    Not that this excuses the USA or Senator Hatch.

  92. Modern Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Orrin Hatch (R-Utah): Bitch of the RIAA and MPAA. Will do anything and everything for the highest bidder. We really need to get the Utah populace to eject this piece of "work" out of his current position and into an appropriate one; namely, giving unspeakable acts to random passers-by on the street for money. What would be the difference? Only that he wouldn't hurt as many people this way and his lust for money would be satiated.

  93. The _hate_ "try before you buy" by msobkow · · Score: 1

    To me, the biggest reason for downloading a game or a movie is to check it out before I spend money on a proper copy of it. It's not my fault that 90% of what I download is crap that flat out isn't worth the money.

    Take Terminator 4 -- I couldn't even stomach watching the whole movie. I deleted it after the first 45 minutes.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  94. Revenge! by Reece400 · · Score: 1

    Sorry, Us Canadians are just angry that since you Americans bought Tim Hortons you've been serving us microwaved from frozen donuts. Give us some real donuts and maybe we'll take our hands off your media!

  95. From a Candian... by DJGrahamJ · · Score: 1

    and local governments $2.6 billion in tax revenue.

    Glad to hear it, eh! It's amazing what you can do when you get internet in your igloo.

    Guess what Hollywood? Even if I couldn't easily download your movies I would never buy them. They suck. Make something worth watching and maybe I'll bother seeing it in the theater. Or, you know, try making a movie that doesn't need millions of dollars of special effects to make up for the overwhelming lack of creativity.

  96. I think I speak for a majority of Canadians... by nightfire-unique · · Score: 1

    ...when I say: Orrin Hatch can go fuck himself.

    --
    A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    1. Re:I think I speak for a majority of Canadians... by mpthompson · · Score: 1

      ...or, maybe he can do it with Vice President Biden. As Biden had a few choice words regarding Canada as well at a recent gala event in Washington sponsored by the MPAA.

  97. Making up loss stats by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

    Senator Hatch also said, 'In fact, one study reports that each year, copyright piracy from motion pictures, sound recordings, business and entertainment software, and video games costs the US economy $58 billion in total output, costs American workers 373,375 jobs and $16.3 billion in earnings, and costs federal, state, and local governments $2.6 billion in tax revenue.'

    Well, according to some studies (conducted by me) Senator Hatch has cost Slashdotters an average of $3,141 per month in earnings and has led to 562 workers per week losing their jobs. I can't tell you my methodology, but it's the same as the entertainment industries. Here's a hint. It rhymes with: Bulled the Frumbers out of Vly Gear.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  98. Wake up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't care. We don't care that we're destroying jobs and profit margins.

    We don't care that you label us pirates.

    We don't care about your campaigns to label us criminals and thieves.

    When the movie and music industry goes under, or the internet goes offline,

    We will find other free forms of entertainment.

    We don't care about you... you're just a passing fad, any distraction will do.

    You are not entitled to our earnings.

  99. Yeah, I'm really disappointed too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "He expressed severe disappointment in Canada for showing up on our watch list for piracy next to China and Russia."

    The same watch list that was quickly shown to be completely bogus with respect to the data used to put Canada on it? It's almost like the U.S. doesn't care whether its "watch list" looks like a bad piece of propaganda, because here he is referring to it even after it is shown to be wrong. And he demonstrated his ignorance in front of an international audience, no less. What a disappointing performance by Senator Hatch.

    Oh well, at least it isn't as bad as mistakenly thinking that the 9/11 terrorists entered the U.S. from Canada, which is a myth that still pops up from time to time even among people who should know better (e.g., like John McCain and the current head of the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security). I guess we should get used to being blamed.

  100. BS by m509272 · · Score: 1

    What a bunch of crap stats. 373,375 jobs. Why not 375,373 job or 773,777 jobs? So is that the extra clerks they would hire to rent videos or mail out DVDs for netflix or answer support calls from legit downloaders or fill up more Redbox machines or package more DVD orders or collect more movie tickets or sell more popcorn? Total junk numbers. I'd have to guess most illegal downloaders are people that would never pay for the stuff to being with. On the other hand, you probably get some people who say that's a good CD or DVD, I'll buy it to support the band or maybe they say yeah I'll spend $100 to see the band or buy a ticket to see the movie on the big screen.

    Personally, I buy zero CDs, zero DVDs and go to zero movies. If I can't get it from the library, listen to it on the radio or watch it on TV (or HBO) I don't see it or hear it. I will not spend another penny. So if I were to download $10 million worth of stuff in my lifetime that is not lost revenue because I would not have purchased it to begin with. I know for a fact that I'm not the only one thinking this way. I'd also guess that many that are paying for every premium TV channel out there is also the one that is likely to be downloading the movies as soon as they can on the internet because they can't wait. So are they ripping the biz off? No, because they are paying for every freakin' channel out there, they are just jumping the gun.

  101. So linux lovers, what's the answer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The model is broken. The people that create need to get paid for creating. The people that distribute and put up money for the creations need to get paid. Capitalism and a free market economy are essentially good things when there is decent oversight. So if you are proposing that there should be no copyright, and a great majority of the world's media is created and produced here in the US, then how do you propose the creators and producers get paid what they deserve - no more, no less - unless there are protections in place to keep their content from being freely distributed? I hear a lot of noise about how the RIAA and MPAA are evil and paranoidal (new word!) spellings of "Amerika" by immature ignoramuses, but haven't heard - or read- any real, viable alternatives for protecting the rights of the artists and the companies that represent them.

  102. CD Levy by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

    I pay $0.20 per blank CD in Canada to cover copyright infringement. Until that levy is gone I can legally download all I want. Don't label me a blasted pirate, ya lily livered sea dog!

  103. The fun part is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can almost guarantee Orrin Hatch had never heard of The Pirate Bay until his RIAA/MPAA overlords "suggested" he make a statement about it.

  104. Go Canada :) by toby · · Score: 1

    Better to be on that list than this one.

    --
    you had me at #!
  105. Pure Bull Shit by tuxgeek · · Score: 1

    'In fact, one study reports that each year, copyright piracy from motion pictures, sound recordings, business and entertainment software, and video games costs the US economy $58 billion in total output, costs American workers 373,375 jobs and $16.3 billion in earnings, and costs federal, state, and local governments $2.6 billion in tax revenue.

    And this is all complete bullshit that Mr. Hatch pulled out of his ass.
    "373,375 workers lost their jobs and $16.3 billion in earnings", because some people make backup copies of their CD & DVD disks?
    Come on now Mr. Hatch, I've heard you say some smart things on occasion, this isn't one of them.

    --
    "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
  106. Silly Senator by w1z4rd · · Score: 1

    The money lost is calculated using Republican maths. (whats it with Americans and thick people?) They lost how much? Using the same logic everyone who didnt buy a lotto ticket lost millions of dollars.

  107. Champagne and Port by ircharlie · · Score: 1

    There was an interesting trade dispute that South Africa had with the European Union. The fact that South Africa made port and sold it as port and had been doing so since before the days of Napolean was contentious as the EU had decided that the word "port" was a piece of intellectual property owned by Portugal. SA had to change their naming to "fortified wine" if they wanted a trade agreement with the EU. Same goes for "champagne". In pretty much the whole world, "champagne" is recognised as a piece of intellectual property owned by the champagne region of France. The US does not abide by these rules and allows sparkling american wine to be labelled as champagne. Now I disagree with the back-dating of trademarks like "port" and "champagne" but I find it amusing that the US holds itself up as the world-wide champion of intellectual property and other countries should fall in line when that seems to only apply to US made products.

  108. Torture, what torture by Geotopia · · Score: 1

    C'mon, waterboarding is a sport, not torture.

    Anyway, I used to like Hatch, but I don't like Hatch's stance on any of this, he's really scraping the bottom of the barrel with his lies, damn lies, and statistics. If the economy lost 300,000 jobs and $16B, then where did it go? Nowhere you hack! People pay what they're willing to pay after they bought what was most important to them. Pirates don't buy software, music, and movies! Stop them from pirating, they still won't buy it.

    The RIAA and MPIG needs to stop treating their customers like criminals and come to the realization that their sales go up when they make good products that entice people to crack open their wallets, not when they crack down on people and compel their wallets open. If anything has cost these trade groups and the industries they represent, it's the ill will of their potential customers. That in a nutshell is where the $16B and the 300,000 jobs went!

    This is like GHWBush going to Japan and throwing up on the Prime Minister because the Japanese don't want our useless cars with the steering wheels on the wrong side. I can't even muster up a fake sob for these groups and it's shameful for Hatch to get sucked into their rhetoric for a crappy $7K rental feel.

    1. Re:Torture, what torture by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Anyway, I used to like Hatch, but I don't like Hatch's stance on any of this, he's really scraping the bottom of the barrel with his lies, damn lies, and statistics. If the economy lost 300,000 jobs and $16B, then where did it go? Nowhere you hack! People pay what they're willing to pay after they bought what was most important to them. Pirates don't buy software, music, and movies! Stop them from pirating, they still won't buy it.

      There is a legal concept called enrichment (if I remember correctly) which basically says you can't use someone else's property to your benefit without their permission. The premises of this concept is not in denying the use of the property but in you gaining something illegitimately. An example of this might be where I know your going to be out of town, use the key you left me to look after your home and find your season hockey tickets and goto a game without your permission even though you have offered to let me use the tickets in the past for $20. A more penalizing example might be me taking your lawnmower and mowing other people's yards for profit while you are at work even if I rebuilt the engine, replaced the blades and removed all forms of wear and tear and you had no clue it was happening.

      What this concept does is presents the premise that by using the product offered for sale or rent, regardless if the intent to ever purchase it or otherwise pay for it, then the owner is entitled to normal costs for the duration of your use or possession. It doesn't really matter if it is tangible, digital or deprives anyone of a physical possession or not, it's that once you became enriched, you owe the normal fees. Using this concept, then all pirated movied, software, whatever is considered a loss and is how they compute the figures.

      When you say where did the money go, you are right in that it went no were but you aren't right in that the owners are not entitled to it, because conceptually, they are.

      Don't take this as indication of my support for or against anything happening. I'm just explaining how they come up with those numbers and justify them. Piracy can be seen as a lost sale because whoever pirated it or received it from a pirate was enriched without the proper compensation to the owners. What would be interesting is to actually see the situation where there was no piracy. I'm betting they spend millions to fight against it and if no piracy existed, their sales would probably drop by more then that amount making it more of a actual operating loss to them if piracy never existed.

    2. Re:Torture, what torture by Geotopia · · Score: 1

      Good comments! These are real legal concepts and deserve examination. I believe what you're referring to is "Unjust Enrichment". There are two ways of looking at it. The first, is pure enrichment, for which you've given some really good examples. One example of this that is frequently used is where we combine our Lincolns and buy a $10 lottery ticket. I hold the ticket and it turns out to be a winner. I pay you back the $5 I "owe" you, and you only discover later when you see my BMW that I won the lottery. You can either rely upon a constructive trust as your argument, or you can use the Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment. Because there was no explicit agreement between us, you can't use the Statute of Frauds, and must rely upon Common Law to seek relief.

      HOWEVER, this is NOT the case with copyright infringement. (C) infringement involves "Statutory" and "Provable" damages. Statutory damages are stated as say, $1,000 per incident (it's actually MUCH higher, but just for argument's sake, let's use $1000). No material evidence backing the claim, just it being written up in the statutes of the Copyright Act. Provable damages might involve an industry loss like those stated by Hatch. These are bogus and untenable claims because they aren't based on actual sales. They use obtuse and vague metrics and if every industry totaled their annual losses to this or that, it would be more than the entire planet makes or consumes in the same time period. As a judge, the only claim I would accept is demonstrable changes that could be directly attributed to a factor. For example, the RIAA shows it made $x in one year and $y the next. It coincides with server logs at Napster showing n files downloaded. ($x - $y)/n is the amount lost per download. But there must be some evidence and testimony that it wasn't because RIAA introduced crappy music or put rootkit on the CDs, or some other negligence on their part. Now, if they can prove Jane or Grandma Doe UPloaded 200 songs, they can calculate the actual damages or statistically valid anecdotal damages.

      Going back to "Unjust Enrichment", the North Dakota Supreme Court came up with a 5 point test for the case. 1. Enrichment by Defendant, 2. Impoverishment by Plaintiff, and I forget 3 ad 4, but they were basically a requirement to prove that 1 and 2 were connected and 5 is that the claim cannot proceed based on Statute. But demonstrating IMPOVERISHMENT was part of the weight of the claim.

      So, with that definition, unless you can prove the "impoverishment" (actual damages), you have no case. You have "conceptual" losses, but that's only compared against "conceptual enrichment". If people are selling bootleg CDs, that's one thing, but listening to music has no direct tangible benefit. It may actually have a cost if you are using local storage.

      RIAA's best bet, with Music, is to flood the black market channels with low bit rate versions of the songs, with embedded adverts, get exposure for their artists, treat their patrons (customers) nicely, and then watch the sales tick back up to normal and fire those fargin' attorneys that are burying the industry. Matter of fact, I'm betting that if a single one of the labels broke ranks and started doing this, they'd propel their artists into such fame and success that the rest of the labels would abandon their current whiny bully tactics.

    3. Re:Torture, what torture by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      Matter of fact, I'm betting that if a single one of the labels broke ranks and started doing this, they'd propel their artists into such fame and success that the rest of the labels would abandon their current whiny bully tactics.

      Maybe, but then they would lose whatever benefits they currently enjoy from being able to act as a cartel and occasionally pay damages in the form of 'valuable products' (i.e. CDs or DVDs that they couldn't sell even in the 3-pack bundle for $7.99) to public libraries, valued at full 'retail value' of $30+ each for the purposes of settlement, as 'punishment' for fixing prices.

    4. Re:Torture, what torture by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Yes, Unjust enrichment was the term I was looking for.

      OWEVER, this is NOT the case with copyright infringement. (C) infringement involves "Statutory" and "Provable" damages. Statutory damages are stated as say, $1,000 per incident (it's actually MUCH higher, but just for argument's sake, let's use $1000). No material evidence backing the claim, just it being written up in the statutes of the Copyright Act. Provable damages might involve an industry loss like those stated by Hatch. These are bogus and untenable claims because they aren't based on actual sales. They use obtuse and vague metrics and if every industry totaled their annual losses to this or that, it would be more than the entire planet makes or consumes in the same time period. As a judge, the only claim I would accept is demonstrable changes that could be directly attributed to a factor. For example, the RIAA shows it made $x in one year and $y the next. It coincides with server logs at Napster showing n files downloaded. ($x - $y)/n is the amount lost per download. But there must be some evidence and testimony that it wasn't because RIAA introduced crappy music or put rootkit on the CDs, or some other negligence on their part. Now, if they can prove Jane or Grandma Doe UPloaded 200 songs, they can calculate the actual damages or statistically valid anecdotal damages.

      Two main points first, then I will explain. In unjust enrichment, the owner is entitled to either actual costs as would be charged normally or any increased the law provides for. The second was that I'm in no way attempting to validate Hatches or anyone else' numbers, that was never my intent. My intent was always to show that because someone used something to their benefit, the concept of "I wouldn't have purchased it anyways" doesn't negate a loss of entitled exchange.

      Now, to get a little more detailed about it. If you normally charge X for a products and someone is considered to be unjustly enriching themselves (taking the benefit without proper payment) then you are entitled to X in return. But when the state says this is a problem and bumps X to Y where Y = Costs+fine+Penalty, the concept hasn't changed, just the process in which you seek justice and the reward. The owner is still entitles to restitution based on the new state formula C+F+P. The effect is that after the fact of the piracy, something is expected to be owed regardless of anyone's intent of ever purchasing it because of the unjust enrichment. However illegitimacy C+F+P or anything in between is doesn't negate that expectation.

      I don't think you are actually arguing over whether or not they are entitled to something as much as how much now they are entitled to. I never attempted to address that nor will I.

      Going back to "Unjust Enrichment", the North Dakota Supreme Court came up with a 5 point test for the case. 1. Enrichment by Defendant, 2. Impoverishment by Plaintiff, and I forget 3 ad 4, but they were basically a requirement to prove that 1 and 2 were connected and 5 is that the claim cannot proceed based on Statute. But demonstrating IMPOVERISHMENT was part of the weight of the claim.

      So, with that definition, unless you can prove the "impoverishment" (actual damages), you have no case. You have "conceptual" losses, but that's only compared against "conceptual enrichment". If people are selling bootleg CDs, that's one thing, but listening to music has no direct tangible benefit. It may actually have a cost if you are using local storage.

      Well, I'm not sure if that is a local (state) precedence or if that carry across the country. Anyways, that's true that they can't show a loss until you set up hit squads who change the model of business from offering quality entertainment for a fee to suing anyone you think isn't paying then settling for another large fee. That shows a loss as in a loss of sales because all of those who settled more or less agreed that they would have normally p

    5. Re:Torture, what torture by Geotopia · · Score: 1

      "Well, I'm not sure if that is a local (state) precedence or if that carry across the country. Anyways, that's true that they can't show a loss until you set up hit squads who change the model of business from offering quality entertainment for a fee to suing anyone you think isn't paying then settling for another large fee. That shows a loss as in a loss of sales because all of those who settled more or less agreed that they would have normally purchased the material if they hadn't pirated it."

      First, for in-state litigation, local cases are going to take precedence, but where none exist, or nothing very similar exists, out-of-state cases may be used. Federal cases are preferred. Supreme Court cases always trump Appellate cases always trump lower court cases. And these days, Judges easily ignore the law, which means that statutory fines can be reduced (or increased). Commenting on this last issue, I hate to think that we are at the mercy of today's courts for application of the law.

      To set aside legalize for a bit though, it's just a big extortion racket, and one that will eventually implode. Congress passed the Copyright Act early on in this country's history to make sure that there was incentive for artists, writers, musicians, to produce. That's probably a false conclusion because there's no shortage of "starving artists", but nonetheless, this fiat "monopoly" (the exclusive right to copy) is actually counter productive, because if you can't copy or perform works of others, they lose their ability to "advertise" their works and the artists end up with worthless, underutilized monopolies to keep all to themselves. That's why congress later introduced "compulsory licensing" to the Copyright Act. It gave radio and then television access to copyrighted materials without having to negotiate prices or get explicit permission.

      My main contention with Lawyers that represent the labels is that the artists' remuneration is not their true agenda, but rather the survival of the cartel which was never the intent of the Copyright Act. I predict it will someday in the near future unravel because not only are the cartels disenfranchising their paying customers, but disaffecting their suppliers (musicians and movie studios). When the benefit of a label is outweighed by the burdensome cost, a new format or structure will rise to replace the rotting RIAA and MPIG.

      For flooding the pipe, you suggested that it failed, but it was probably more the approach. Give people 128bit and those that want 256 bit will hear it, like it, and buy it while those that are satisfied with 128 bit never were their paying customers. Indistinguishable from AM radio's usefulness in promoting music. Don't give them bad files, that just perpetuates the toxic approach of suing your customers.

    6. Re:Torture, what torture by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      To set aside legalize for a bit though, it's just a big extortion racket, and one that will eventually implode. Congress passed the Copyright Act early on in this country's history to make sure that there was incentive for artists, writers, musicians, to produce. That's probably a false conclusion because there's no shortage of "starving artists", but nonetheless, this fiat "monopoly" (the exclusive right to copy) is actually counter productive, because if you can't copy or perform works of others, they lose their ability to "advertise" their works and the artists end up with worthless, underutilized monopolies to keep all to themselves. That's why congress later introduced "compulsory licensing" to the Copyright Act. It gave radio and then television access to copyrighted materials without having to negotiate prices or get explicit permission.

      The artist wouldn't lose the right to advertise, they always had the right to allow copying. It's just their exclusive right. The compulsory licensing additions were more or less means to fight de facto monopolies due to existing copyright laws.

      My main contention with Lawyers that represent the labels is that the artists' remuneration is not their true agenda, but rather the survival of the cartel which was never the intent of the Copyright Act. I predict it will someday in the near future unravel because not only are the cartels disenfranchising their paying customers, but disaffecting their suppliers (musicians and movie studios). When the benefit of a label is outweighed by the burdensome cost, a new format or structure will rise to replace the rotting RIAA and MPIG.

      I don't disagree here. In fact, I think you stole the sentiment right from my mind. Joking aside, I do agree.

      For flooding the pipe, you suggested that it failed, but it was probably more the approach. Give people 128bit and those that want 256 bit will hear it, like it, and buy it while those that are satisfied with 128 bit never were their paying customers. Indistinguishable from AM radio's usefulness in promoting music. Don't give them bad files, that just perpetuates the toxic approach of suing your customers.

      The concept sounds good but as with the bad files, some will still work around it. It's probably more worth a shot pf trying then rejecting based on past performances. I do hear that the experiments with free album downloads with a donation option turned out somewhat well for the artists who tried it.

    7. Re:Torture, what torture by Geotopia · · Score: 1

      "The concept sounds good but as with the bad files, some will still work around it."

      The key is to recognize and work WITH human nature. If the labels stuff the pipe with bad files, they don't encourage anything positive. People would find ways to detect and flag them. On the other hand, if they flooded the P2P pipe with low quality, but genuine files, the need for pirated files would dry up over night. It would be too easy to get the GENUINE files, albeit low res, from ANYWHERE. The incentive to pirate disappears. Conceivably you could do the same with movies, standard def for free, high def for a cost.

      Then, you capture all your real customers (high def) and treat your FUTURE customers well. Also on the upside is you can both advertise and control the releases. The Pirates lose ALL their power over the situation. Leaches slowly convert into customers. Good will abounds! Fire all your attorneys because you don't need them anymore.

      BTW, don't think for a moment that even if they win a lawsuit against a single mother with three kids for $1M that they'll collect a penny. They'll just force the person into Bankruptcy. Which makes me wonder why they're doing the legal dance AT ALL!? Now that I think about it, they're nuts! Spend thousands, hundreds of thousands suing, get shafted through the bankruptcy, and poison their market along the way. In the mean time miss out on the biggest, most efficient distribution channel to ever present itself. Now I think I know where all the money went... Straight to the lawyers. Hatch should wise up, he's getting played a fool!

    8. Re:Torture, what torture by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The need for pirated files would dry up over night if everyone was content with low grade files or pirated for the purpose of testing the music. That's the problem, some don't want to ever buy the stuff even though they can afford it and some won't want to appear as the poor kid on the block jamming to scratchy music. While others just want a quality reproduction of CDs, Tapes, or records they already own without having to buy them again or to take the time to rip them all. The later case, I would see as legitimate reasons for it being there.

      I agree with your premise, I just have doubts on it's success.

      As for the lawsuit, I don't pretend to understand insane people. I can't tell you why other then EGO and fear tactics. Your right in that they are missing out on one most efficient distribution channels to ever present itself, but it isn't my place to force them to use it. They can suffer and go extinct by their own hands just fine without me forcing them to stay in business.

    9. Re:Torture, what torture by Geotopia · · Score: 1

      Well, if you look at specifics, and ignore the big fat claims made generally, you can start to piece together why it would work, or at least better than it is now.
      Consider several types of people:

      1. Penniless student.

      2. OCD* Hacker.

      3. Rich mamma's boy (or girl)

      4. Regular folks with jobs, cars, families

      Right now, tunes are available for download legitimately at $.99 a pop. Kids with money simply click on them and they own them. It's even more true with Adults who probably already have their CD collection filled out and just want a few rare tracks, but have no time to spend scouring P2P or Torrent sites. So that's your paying customer. You want to protect this market, both by good will to the patron and by NOT cannibalizing the market. They'll pay extra to quickly find the tune and for slightly better quality.

      The starving student wants the latest tunes, but can't afford them. Life is always a toss up between time and money, so students spend their time finding the tunes illegally. Assuming they aren't little computer geniuses or CompSci majors, they rely on the whatever is out there while conscience takes a back seat to convenience. They'll take what they can get in terms of quality.

      The hacker is rewarded not by having the music to listen to, but by building the library of pirated tunes. For him, it's not a matter of money, but of collecting the songs and sharing them. It's like the little dots on PacMan, he's wired to hunt and gather and show off his warez. Of course, I'm ignoring the black market in Asia that's got CD presses running 24/7 producing contra band, but American lawyers aren't going after these folks anyway.

      Now, let's say that the labels plaster the internet with easy access low quality MP3s. The student will simply go to the fan sites and grab a copy to listen. He will probably grab new tunes and try them out. They get "air play", and no revenue was lost or cannibalized. Sure the rich kid might also download the freebie, but if iTunes is the pay-to-listen model (70% of online sales), he's still likely to pay for his music, buying directly from his music interface instead of his browser. He's also got the expensive Sennheiser headphones so 128bit music is only good enough to try out the tune, not add it to his collection.

      The big question is how does this affect the hacker or OCD collector? There's no longer any reward in having rare tunes, because no tunes are rare and there's no reward for sharing because he's no longer a critical intermediary in the sharing process. Even without prosecuting the pirates, with free music in the stream, you've marginalized their efforts. Now the only pirates you have to worry about are on the high seas in and around Somalia.

      So you haven't really lost anything, but what you did gain is that the rich kids, the actual customers, are hearing more tunes through the free play and are more likely to seek out new music to buy from their one click musical interface. It plays out well on regular PCs, Cell phones, and in the near future from the living room set top box. You're spending less on distribution, less on legal, and the labels can start realizing the tangible benefit of happy customers who aren't treated like criminals before they've even done anything wrong.

      If the labels aren't winning right now (and they aren't, or these articles on /. wouldn't attract so much participation), then they should try something new and different. Setting aside the trial lawyers for a moment, their real adversary is the black market, so taking out that market should be central to their strategy. So, applying a bit of market kung fu by embracing the model instead of fighting a losing battle against it would go a long way in disabling their opponent.

      * Obsessive Compulsive Disorder

  109. halfwit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does he come from a state where marrying a close relative is mandatory?

  110. Only $58 billion? by anon*127.0.0.1 · · Score: 1

    I have seen statistics that reliably put the annual loss to to piracy at a figure closer to 47 kajillion dollars.

    --
    I am NOT a man!
    I am a free number!
  111. and which fuckin study is that ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

    the one you bought by shelling out a few mil bucks from a gaudy 'think thank' ?

    go f@ck off. lobbying and think thanking should be banned.

  112. Maybe your senators should learn to read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seams your senators are no better than Canada's own politician. As Michael Geist has explained repeatedly (and again today) http://www.michaelgeist.ca/. All this garbage about Canada being a haven of file sharing is based on very questionable 6 year old data.

  113. Fuck United States, Fuck Mr. Hatch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm Canadian. Sorry but US politicians lack any sort of basis to admonish any nation on any topic. If they're doing that, by definition they are worsening the terrible existing internal problems the US has, by expending their efforts elsewhere. If your Senators aren't focusing on fixing your nation for you, why don't you rip them out of their Senate seats and put someone there who represents you? Well yeah OK I guess if I were an American, I'd feel so bad that I would have to start pointing fingers too. The hell with Americans. You continually fail to not act like arrogant children.

    PS. Hey almighty Senator, guess who you are in Canada? Just Orrin. Some Yank with no influence. And if I saw you I'd tell you to go back to your hellish plutarchy and stay there.

  114. crazy people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congratulations on your divorce.

    That kind of thinking is classic. I'm not a psychologist, but narcissistic personality disorder and sociopathy come to mind.

    I'm pretty sure my mother is in one of those two categories. Doesn't seem to be dangerous, fortunately. But she can't seem to keep friends, because they notice and say something, and then they're "out to get her" when they suggest she may want to talk to someone.

    On the other hand, complete disregard for others' right to live their lives as they see fit seems to be a pretty common syndrome of the American psyche. (Maybe the human psyche.) I should be happy about the degree to which we have detente among the various groups, as that's all that saves un-binnable freaks like me from being outlawed in the crossfire. (And many of my fellow harmless freaks are not so lucky, esp. the recreational pharmaceuticalists of most stripes.)

  115. Stupidity displayed by Senator Orrin Hatch by lsatenstein · · Score: 0

    Canada, a population 1/10th that of the USA, with a less developed telecom sector, has set up industries to download and counterfeit music CDs. We then create Canadian Spellings for the labels, adding in the extra letter u, where it was left out, and substitution the z and s back to where it belongs. And the senator believes that electronic digital drums, and other instruments are of interest. From what I see, teenagers buy their music from the web, and do not know or have the means to transfer it from one ipod to another. We old farts still use vinyl 33 rpms, and full stereo orchestrial music. Not the big boom boom boom crap we here in the 3000 watt base speakers built-in to teenager cars. No Senator, good music would result in sales of cds and dvds. Poor music results in no-sales.

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  116. Orrin Hatch is a Mor(m)on by jhylkema · · Score: 1

    As such, he believes that Joseph Smith, a convicted fraudster, found a cache of gold plates that were supposedly left there by a tribe of Israelites (Nephites) who came to America. Said convicted fraudster allegedly dug up said gold plates and a pair of sacred spectacles that allowed him to read said plates. The story gleaned from this became the Book of Mormon, a tome full of tales that are utterly absurd and have no basis in any mainstream science.

    Given that Orrin Hatch believes this crap, it's only a short hop to believing that Canada is as bad as China and Russia with respect to copyright infringement.