Slashdot Mirror


White House Holding Piracy Summit

DesScorp writes in to let us know about a White House piracy summit, which is going on this afternoon. Judging by the press accounts, the sort of intellectual property criminals they are interested in are large-scale DVD bootleggers, not individual downloaders. "Hollywood once again demonstrates its close ties to Washington DC, regardless of who is in power, with a White House summit on piracy to be attended by the top executives in Hollywood, as well as the music industry. Vice President Joe Biden will be leading the summit to discuss organized cooperation between the federal government and the entertainment industry on all matters of piracy. Also at the summit will be the Obama Administration's new Copyright Czar, Victoria Espinal. The summit comes after Congress has earmarked $30 million dollars of taxpayer funds for anti-piracy efforts." According to one attendee's tweet, the press was kicked out of the meeting around 20:45 GMT.

268 comments

  1. !change by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Amazing how the more things change the more they stay the same, isn't it?

    I can't wait to hear all of the partisans who rightfully complained about Dick Cheney's energy task force come out of the woodwork to tell us why this is "different".

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    1. Re:!change by Moryath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Al Gore Senior was one of the MafiAA's pet stooges who wrote/pushed the 1987 predecessor to the DMCA that tried to criminalize DAT tape unless it had a "copy protection flag" built in.

      Amazing how some things never change, indeed!

    2. Re:!change by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I'd be inclined to doubt it. Even the most starry-eyed members of the uncritical Obama fans club don't have any real use for Biden or the Obama administration's general chumminess with Team Content.

    3. Re:!change by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      Why post that when it's so much more fun to watch you knock down strawmen!

    4. Re:!change by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      You'll find very few people here who ever worshiped the Obamassiah. It's no secret that the Dems are just as much in the pocket of the media companies as the Republicans.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    5. Re:!change by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Then why'd they vote for them?

      Oh yeah, "lessor of two evils" and all that. Who was it around here who first said "The lessor of two evils is still evil"?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:!change by internettoughguy · · Score: 1

      tell us why this is "different".

      It's not and it sucks, but on the other hand at least so far this administration hasn't started any wars.

      touches wood

    7. Re:!change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you rent one evil, let alone two?

    8. Re:!change by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      but on the other hand at least so far this administration hasn't started any wars.

      No, but their Secretary of State and a large number of their party currently in Congress did.......

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:!change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      John McCain was backed by the CEO of the RIAA. If we go by slashtard logic wouldn't that automatically disqualify him?

    10. Re:!change by Shakrai · · Score: 1, Troll

      John McCain disqualified himself when he picked someone completely unqualified to serve as President to be his running mate.......

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    11. Re:!change by Grimbleton · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, a governor who did a lot for her state versus... a habitually non-present senator whose only prior experience was as a community adviser.

      Hm yes, unqualified running mates.

    12. Re:!change by armanox · · Score: 1

      Because Mr. Obama was more qualified then Gov. Palin, right?

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    13. Re:!change by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Why bother to address any of his concerns (regardless of the slanted manner they're presented.) when you can just post logical fallacies. I'm sure for a certain subset of people, the OP is just putting words in their mouths, but there are going to be some people who tow the line on this and suggest that there's nothing wrong with this or attempt to downplay it. This is really just another straw man that detracts from any actual discussion of the topic and quickly degenerates into a flame war.

      The partisan goons from all political parties or groups (Yes, even the small third parties.) are the reason governments keep getting away with this crap. They're too busy levying accusations of "Well your guy did it too and you didn't have a problem with it then." or the like, that anyone telling government to knock this shit off gets drown out in the crap-flood of idiocy flowing forth from the mouths of these partisan idiots.

      Worse yet, these worthless gits are the ones shown on television all of the time. The news stations have become less about facts, information, or rational thoughts and more about becoming a political version of Jerry Springer. It's not just Fox news that's guilty of this either. The saddest bit is that we deserve every single thing we get, as We the People seem to keep voting for it.

    14. Re:!change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Just keep voting for the same two parties while telling yourselves that "this time there'll be change, no really, they really mean it this time, I swear!" You want change, put a Libertarian president in office. I know it's trendy to denigrate Libertarianism and to talk about how it's the exact same thing as anarco-capitalism even though it isn't. That's cute, to take the most extreme possible view of something and represent it as the norm -- by that standard, all modern-day Catholics are members of the Inquisition, right?

      At any rate, a person with a strict interpretation of the Constitution is an example of a Libertarian. Right now, that's exactly what we need. All of the problems we have today with copyright and anything else are the result of the federal government having too much power. A Libertarian is about the only type of candidate who would actually try to do something about that. A Libertarian would also seek to end the ridiculous failure known as the War on (some) Drugs and would not view the current healthcare debate as a reason to expand governmental authority. But just keep voting in the same people who created the system we now know and don't love, because that's real CHANGE. Right?

    15. Re:!change by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hooray, I've pissed the right-wing partisans for a change!

      Answer me this: What makes you think that because I said Gov. Palin was unqualified that I think that Senator Obama was?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    16. Re:!change by angelwolf71885 · · Score: 0

      i will keep my money my guns and my freedom Obama you can keep the CHANGE

    17. Re:!change by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, a governor who did a lot for her state versus

      Whom couldn't even answer a question about the Bush doctrine. I'm not involved in government at any level and I still knew what the Bush doctrine was. Sorry but I'm just not willing to vote for someone who isn't smarter than I am. Besides, if she couldn't hack it against Katie Couric how's she gonna hack it against Vladimir Putin?

      a habitually non-present senator whose only prior experience was as a community adviser.

      What makes you think that I believe Mr. Obama was qualified?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    18. Re:!change by drquoz · · Score: 1

      Yes, of course he was. Or is this some sort of trick question?

    19. Re:!change by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

      You forgot "Love it or Leave it!" and my personal favorite "Ass Grass or Cash, Nobody Rides Free"!

      What are you hauling these days?

    20. Re:!change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it is different!!!
      For example Dick Cheney is replaced by Joe Biden and "Big Oil" execs and lobbyists are replaced by "Entertainment" execs and lobbyists. Therefore the pictures will be different. For example I expect the current summit, being run by the "Entertainment" industry, will use much better CGI w.r.t. the farm animals in the photos that are being used to persuade the politicians.

    21. Re:!change by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, of course he was.

      • Natural-born citizen.
      • Over 35 years old.
      • Lived in-country for at least 14 years.

      Yep, he's qualified. Oh, and:

      • Elected.

      ;-)

    22. Re:!change by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 2, Funny

      how's she gonna hack it against Vladimir Putin

      Maybe she can drink him under the table.

    23. Re:!change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When libertarians stop presenting us with a false dichotomy between the status quo and libertarianism, I'll stop denigrating them.

      Libertarians are a lot like communists; either you buy into their radical ideology, or you're part of the problem. There are no shades of grey.

    24. Re:!change by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Informative

      I can't wait to hear all of the partisans who rightfully complained about Dick Cheney's energy task force come out of the woodwork to tell us why this is "different".

      Reasons why this is different:
      1. Dick Cheney never put out a press release announcing there was a meeting
      2. Dick Cheney never released any of the names of the people he or his Task Force met with
      3. Most of the activities of the Task Force have never been/will never be disclosed by the government

      Here's most of what we know about the Energy Task Force (two articles)

      I find it distasteful that the press is getting kicked out, but none of this is happening in Cheney-esqe secrecy.
      I'm going to save my outrage for something more substantial like the secret Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty negotiations.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    25. Re:!change by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Yeah, he is smart enough to handle katie couric. Also he probably knows that Russia is not visible from Palin's front porch.

    26. Re:!change by Conchobair · · Score: 1

      When you said John McCain DQ'd himself by picking a under qualified running mate. Logically Obama would also be DQ'd for being under qualified as well, unless you thought otherwise. So, unless you were uncommonly supporting a 3rd party canidate or no candidate, which should have been mentioned, you would be implying Obama was qualified. Care to clear it up once and for all?

    27. Re:!change by Stupid+McStupidson · · Score: 1

      So..........industry bribes the politicians in power? Don't they understand their money would be better spent bribing the officials who weren't elected, and don't hold power?

    28. Re:!change by Shakrai · · Score: 1, Informative

      Bullshit. There's a lot of shades of gray to libertarians.

      Do you completely oppose regulation or do you just oppose the Federal Government stepping outside of the bounds of the Constitution?

      Are you pro-life or pro-choice?

      Are you opposed to the social safety net entirely or just the fact that the Federal Government is involved?

      Are you in favor of a non-interventionist foreign policy or just opposed to the fact that Congress has ceded it's authority to declare war?

      Are you in favor of blanket drug legislation or do you think it should be up to the states to decide the issue?

      Those are just the issues off the top of my head that Libertarians have good-faith disagreements on. Not all Libertarians are anarco-capitalists.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    29. Re:!change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing funnier than a bunch of old farts trying to stop piracy LOL.

    30. Re:!change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why'd you have to mention that? Now the birthers are sure to flood this article with their insanity... :(

    31. Re:!change by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Troll

      Here's the problem: before we can elect a libertarian to high political office, the Libertarian Party will have to find one amongst their number who is not insane.

      And I don't mean "has weird political views" insane, I mean nose-picking, drooling, playing with their own feces insane.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    32. Re:!change by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Logically I was replying to this post, which talked about McCain, and thus it doesn't seem to make much sense for you to draw inferences about Obama based upon my comment.

      For the record, no, I don't think that a not-even-single-term-US-Senator with zero executive, zero foreign policy and zero military experience is qualified to be President. Obama's main qualification seems to be the fact that he can put together a good speech. Nine years ago he was a State Senator that nobody had ever heard of whom was denied entry to the Democratic Convention and couldn't even afford a hotel or the airline ticket back home. Now he's the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military on the planet. WTF?

      Regarding Palin, I happen to think that she's gotten a raw deal in many respects -- the way she was driven out of the Governors office and the attacks on her family both come to mind -- but I still don't think she was remotely qualified to be a heartbeat away from the nuclear launch codes. She couldn't handle a damn interview with Katie Couric for heavens sake. You can complain all you want about the interview being rigged or whatnot but if she can't handle the American media how the fuck is she going to handle Putin or Ahmadinejad?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    33. Re:!change by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ah yes, a governor who did a lot for her state

      Citation please.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    34. Re:!change by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Have you read the Constitution? Copyright and patents are Congress's domain. Having a Libertarian administration wouldn't fix the problem.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    35. Re:!change by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Let's just say that Ron Paul had been elected to office. Other than the fact that the US now had a completely nutty and out to lunch fanatic in office, unless a whole bunch of Libertarians got into Congress, I'd suggest that regardless of the Constitution of Congress, the Dems and Republicans would join hands to make Paul's four years in office so miserable and utterly wasted that he might as well have never run. At the end of the day, Congress holds the purse strings and the bulk of the legislative power, and even if you think welfare, environmental protections and fiat currency are all bad, is anybody under the illusion that the Oval Office could actually force the day. Heck, Obama can't even get the health care plan he wanted through and his own party controls both houses!

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    36. Re:!change by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh good grief. The only thing that did "it" for Alaska was obscenely high energy prices. You could have replaced Palin with Mr. Hanky and got the same effect.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    37. Re:!change by Shakrai · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ron Paul wouldn't get into office without a large number of Libertarians joining him. You don't think that all of a sudden enough people are going to wake up and decide to pull the Libertarian lever for POTUS but not for Congress, do you?

      Political movements are built from the ground up. Before we see a Libertarian President we'd see Libertarian town councilman, Libertarian State Legislators, maybe a Governor or two, Libertarian Congressman, etc, etc. The only point to third parties running a Presidential candidate is to draw attention to themselves. The real work is done at lower levels of office.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    38. Re:!change by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Biden's a twit, but on the scale of qualification, he still dwarfs Palin. The choice of Palin had everything to do with McCain trying to shed his maverick image to the social conservative and Evangelical wings of the GOP, who were pretty much threatening to stay home on Election Day if he won the nomination. I actually feel sorry for McCain, because he was fucked either way. Either he went with a running mate who shared his views, and a key core constituency of the Republicans walked away, or he picked someone who could walked, talked and crapped like they had a Bible stuck up their ass, and lost Middle America, which had grown weary of Republican identity politics.

      I think the biggest tragedy of the 2000 election wasn't that Al Gore lost, but that John McCain didn't become president. I don't necessarily agree with everything he's done, but the John McCain of 2000 was the best guy on the field, and those evil monsters pulling Bush the Retard's strings destroyed him. The McCain of 2008 was a shadow of the man that was. The McCain of 2000 would have told a half-witted religious nut like Palin to take a hike.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    39. Re:!change by Idiomatick · · Score: 1, Informative

      Parent shouldn't be modded as troll. Palin is really really stupid guys. If you can't even admit that much, I worry for you.

    40. Re:!change by MightyMartian · · Score: 0

      I don't think Ron Paul and his fellow Libertarian nutjobs could have got elected unless some horrible disease had evolved that only attacked Republicans and Democrats, and it was choice between him and Ralph Nader.

      Boy, if you're talking about the choice of the lesser evils, that contest would practically be a toin coss! I would expect Congress would have been phoning up Queen Elizabeth II and saying "We give up! We want back in."

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    41. Re:!change by Tynin · · Score: 1

      So you start out by saying we need to keep electing Presidents from the Repubs and Dems because that is the only way the President will be able to accomplish anything. Then you finish it up by saying not even a Dem as President with a Dem controlled House and Senate can get anything done... which is it? By the way, Ron Paul is a Repub, not a Libertarian.

      I don't pay much attention to all the hand waving of both parties, but I'm always amazed at how many people think we simply have to maintain the status quo and keep electing the same two groups who consistently do the same crazy things. But hey, don't let that stop you from bashing some party that doesn't have a chance of even getting a spot in the Presidential debates due to the underhandedness of the current two party system nor has ever been elected to the ranks of President. Dang evil Libertarians, surely they are the bane of the political atmosphere with all that power they don't wield against us...

    42. Re:!change by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the U.S. falls asleep and becomes complacent. Think of this country back in the 1920s and 30s. Once there is enough political will things will change rather rapidly. There is a long slope for those of us that see what both sides are doing as wrong. I do see more and more people getting fed up with both sides. The republican party has completely fallen apart and look like children. The democratic party can't stop arguing amongst itself. Look at the shamble that is the health care legislation. Finally I see someone on TV stop talking about the dollar amounts and start talking about how many lives it would save.

      I would say that the U.S. is starting to stir, we're not awake yet as 8 years of Bush made a lot of people numb. Fortunately there are a lot of people that expected real change from Obama so getting burned by the two major parties will do a lot to change the way people think.

    43. Re:!change by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ron Paul is a Republican only slightly more than Joe Lieberman is a Democrat. Paul seems to be regarded with bemusement by fellow Republicans, sort of like Borat's village rapist.

      My point is that all the swirly eyed Paulites ran around insisting how different things would be if a Real Libertarian got the nod, with little appreciation that his more radical notions (like going back to the Gold Standard) would more than likely be blocked by Congress anyways. They seemed to consistently ignore the fact there is more to government than the Executive, and a lot, if not most, of the decisions since Abraham Lincoln came along were Congresses as much as the President's.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    44. Re:!change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . . . whom was denied entry to the Democratic Convention . . .

      Whom couldn't even answer a question about the Bush doctrine.

      I really appreciate what you are saying. But if you are going to use 'whom' please learn how first.
      Here's a cheat sheet:
      who -- nominative, used as a subject or predicate nominative in it's own clause.

      • Subject: He is the one who loves me. (he/who loves me)
      • Predicate nominative: He loves who I am. (I am he/who)

      whom -- accusative, used as an object of either a verb or preposition in it's own clause.

      • Object of verb: "He is the one whom I love." (I love him/whom)
      • Object of preposition: He is the the one of whom I heard (I heard of him/whom)
    45. Re:!change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's the problem: before we can elect a libertarian to high political office, the Libertarian Party will have to find one amongst their number who is not insane.

      And I don't mean "has weird political views" insane, I mean nose-picking, drooling, playing with their own feces insane.

      There comes a point where it stops being hyperbole and starts being lies.

      You passed that point about three area codes ago.

    46. Re:!change by angelwolf71885 · · Score: 0

      you might wanna pull over every few miles and check the air in your head....just a suggestion ;)

    47. Re:!change by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

      Vote for the other guy and hope it changes. ...oops.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    48. Re:!change by quanticle · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, "lessor of two evils" and all that. Who was it around here who first said "The lessor of two evils is still evil"?

      The lesser of two evils is still evil, but it is also lesser. What's the alternative, voting for Cthulu? As long as we're going to elect evil, we may as well elect the greatest evil of all, right?

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    49. Re:!change by BobMcD · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He could have done a lot of my favorite things on the first day, without the approval of anyone:

      1) End the wars and bring home the troops

      2) Fire everyone in the Department of Education, or any other Executive Department

      3) End the NSA domestic spying programs and the CIA espionage

      4) Close Gitmo

      5) Pardon everyone in a Federal Prison for drug possession

      There are many, many more. In fact most of what Bush did was done via abuse of Executive power. It is entirely possible to wield it in a good way as well as a bad.

      I'm not sure what parts of that are 'swirly eyed', but none of it is outside the realm of possibility.

    50. Re:!change by toastar · · Score: 0

      McCain/Obama were elected to via the primaries. The people had already decided he was qualified. I've never seen so many people at the democratic primary in texas... Ever. McCain by picking somebody unqualified for his first appointment did disqualify himself. how did we know when the first supreme court opening came around he wouldn't nominate Judge Judy?

    51. Re:!change by Shakrai · · Score: 0, Troll

      Awww, how cute, one of my freaks came out of the woodwork to defend me against a bullshit mod :)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    52. Re:!change by toastar · · Score: 0

      neither did LBJ, he just escalated the existing war.

    53. Re:!change by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I think the parent is both insightful and informative. Mod+, Mod+!

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    54. Re:!change by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Either he went with a running mate who shared his views, and a key core constituency of the Republicans walked away, or he picked someone who could walked, talked and crapped like they had a Bible stuck up their ass, and lost Middle America, which had grown weary of Republican identity politics.

      He should have picked Huckabee. The Huckster could appeal to the aforementioned Bible-up-the-ass crowd but still had enough populist appeal to get through to Middle America. The business wing of the party wouldn't have liked him very much but I suspect they would have sucked it up a lot easier than Middle America would have accepted Palin or the bible-thumpers would have accepted Libermann.

      Huckabee also knew how to talk to people and could charm even those that disagreed with him. Palin has many attributes but this is not one of them. People love her or hate her.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    55. Re:!change by Idiomatick · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I love you too man lol. Just because I don't like a big chunk of your political view doesn't mean I'm just going to blanket assume you are wrong. Even if I come off as a douche sometimes :P

    56. Re:!change by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but I fail to see how being Governor made Sarah Palin unqualified to be Vice President, yet being Governor made Bill Clinton qualified to be President.

      Like her or dislike her, that's fine - but Palin was much more qualified than Obama who'd never held a real leadership position before -- and Palin wasn't even running for President.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    57. Re:!change by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Obama's main qualification seems to be the fact that he can put together a good speech.

      Obama's main qualification seems to be the fact that his speech writers can put together a good speech and he can read from a teleprompter.

      There, fixed that for ya!

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    58. Re:!change by maxume · · Score: 1

      What about the war on health care?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    59. Re:!change by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've never met a Palin lover that wasn't either pondering what getting inside her pants would be like, or just simply liked the idea of a fellow religious zealot being one bullet away from the Oval Office.

      Huckabee would certainly have been the more logical choice if you were looking for a VP with at least some skills, but I don't think he was sufficiently uber-religious to get past the hump McCain needed to. McCain was deeply unpopular with the various brands of social conservatives in the GOP. He largely got in because he was simply the last man standing. Let's remember here, too, that early on, a lot of GOP strategists thought they were going to be facing off against Clinton, and that had been the common wisdom for a couple of years. McCain vs. Clinton would have been a much different dust up, and certainly a more conventional kind of campaign. But when it became clear that Obama was going to beat Clinton, the whole game changed and McCain's strategists grew very conservative in their maneuvering, and actively sought out someone who could both deliver the Evangelicals and other related conservatives, but not overshadow McCain himself (which Huckabee most certainly would have).

      I don't think anyone expected the kind of response to Palin, particular in the McCain camp. I mean, really, a running mate is just, well, a running mate. They get some attention, but all in all they're the sideshow, relegated to a level of importance below the candidate's wife, kids and pets. But Palin become a phenomena in and of herself. She certainly managed to rally the faithful, who were (and still are) quite happy to ignore the fact that the woman was woefully inadequate to the job. I expect that over the next couple of years that will change to some degree, but to be honest, I can't imagine the GOP flinging her at Obama. They'll be looking at Huckabee again, and its probably better that he didn't get tarred with being McCain's running mate.

      By the way, this is the same logic that Obama applied to picking Biden, as opposed to Clinton.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    60. Re:!change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i suppose you wouldn't expect anything else though would you?

      fair enough, if you want to discuss leptons or gpus then this is the place to be...
      but asking a geek about politics is like asking a fish about motorbikes.

      if anyone is serious about libertarianism then they're of a certain type, obviously; it's simple-minded nonsense for people that are clearly not very well adjusted socially.

      as i say, it is incredible that people come on to slashdot to discuss politics and expect anything else...

    61. Re:!change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry but I'm just not willing to vote for someone who isn't smarter than I am.

      So there's NO ONE you wouldn't vote for? Dumb shit.

    62. Re:!change by Anarchduke · · Score: 1
      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    63. Re:!change by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      People love her or hate her.

      And the people who do love her are either horny schoolboys, clueless housewives, or dirty old men; and they all love her for the wrong reasons.

      McCain should've instead picked Meryl Streep, at least her politician/MILF performance in Manchurian Candidate was much more convincing than Palin's real-life idiocy.

    64. Re:!change by Runaway1956 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      And, what exactly do you have against the nose picking, drooling, playing with his own feces insane sumbitch who recently vacated the White House? The one who made all the idiot voters believe that he was a Texan, but was actually an eastern pansy assed cheerleader in college? The batshit sumbitch who invaded Iraq, in response to an attack by a man known to be in Afghanistan?

      I've not met any Libertarians who drool as much as that freaking Republican.

      We should have made Robert Heinlein our President. He would have changed things - among other things, non-veterans wouldn't be allowed to vote. Starship Troopers!! Yeah!!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    65. Re:!change by internettoughguy · · Score: 0

      wow, what an unreasonable comparison, ~1,000,000 unnecessary civilian deaths isn't something for partisan fucks such as yourself to scoff at, it's more comparable to the holocaust, the soviet gulags, or pol pots killing fields.

    66. Re:!change by maxume · · Score: 1

      So which partisan am I?

      Or maybe I just have a tasteless sense of humor.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    67. Re:!change by Runaway1956 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "Sorry but I'm just not willing to vote for someone who isn't smarter than I am."

      That makes it tough on anyone smarter than a rock.....

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    68. Re:!change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of coarse not. That has been available since the campaign, at this point anyone still buying into the birther nonsense is being willfully ignorant.

    69. Re:!change by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      What's the alternative, voting for Cthulu?

      Yes... you will vote for Cthulu... When that time has finally come we will know peace..

    70. Re:!change by internettoughguy · · Score: 0

      My apologies, I thought you were serious, you sounded like a Big-State Conservative.

    71. Re:!change by Underyed · · Score: 1

      But its like the force. Abuse leads to the dark side. Intent does not matter. If Obama abuses the system, even to do good, he has lowered himself towards the dark side. He must tread carefully and affect change through more creative ways than the blatant disregard of rule and law.

    72. Re:!change by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't know about them, but I voted for Obama even though I figured he was full of shit, and buddies of mine who are ultra conservative did as well. Why? Two words: Caribou Barbie. The thought that the Alaska Blunder Woman was a bad cheese sandwich away from being the POTUS? That's some scary shit.

      But frankly since 2000 it has been pretty much hold your nose and flip a quarter. Bill may have not been able to keep it zipped but at least he was not running up deficits from hell. But Palin was a total embarrassment. She seemed to bring out every whacko in the country. Remember how after she would get them riled up the crowds would be so hate filled that McCain would actually have to come out and say nice things about Obama so it didn't look like a white guy leading a lynching party? That is pretty bad.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    73. Re:!change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok put it like this, if you dumb f****** yanks let Palin anywhere near political office at all then you had better be prepared to stand completely alone as a nation against the rest of the world.

      apart from anything else you simply don't have the economic clout to seduce criminals like blair and berlusconi anymore, so don't expect them to back you up at the UN etc. etc.

      wake up to this america - you are in danger of slipping into darkness. don't let your business leaders drag you down with them...

    74. Re:!change by daveime · · Score: 0, Troll

      Hehe another coolforsale.com clone, complete with Engrish plivacy poricy word-for-word and the unbeatable "we'll refund half your money" returns policy. keywords : chinese sweatshop spam cool for sale

    75. Re:!change by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      But frankly since 2000 it has been pretty much hold your nose and flip a quarter. Bill may have not been able to keep it zipped but at least he was not running up deficits from hell.

      That's because he had a Republican Congress to contend with and neither side was willing to give the other one the satisfaction. Somehow I doubt he would have achieved the same thing with the budget/deficit if Nancy Pelosi had been speaker of the House.

      One party rule sucks. Look at what happened when Bush had a Republican Congress. They gave each other a blank check. I'll be holding my nose and voting straight line GOP in 2010. If they take back one or both houses of Congress then maybe we can get some sanity in Washington. It worked in the 90s.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    76. Re:!change by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I don't think Palin has any interest in running for POTUS. She's not entirely stupid -- you don't get to be Governor of a state without being able to read polls. I think her MO from this point going forward is simply to cash in. Collect $50,000 speaking fees and book royalties. Can't really say as I blame her either. Her family isn't rich and she incurred six digits worth of legal debt fighting ethics complaints (most of which were baseless) as Governor, so why not take the money and run?

      Oh, she'll stick around to rally the base and keep her name in the news, but I doubt very much that we'll see her running for any sort of national office. I suppose she could take the Hillary approach and run for US Senate (Begich is living on borrowed time in that heavily Republican state and only won because of Ted Stevens' legal woes) but even that would surprise me.

      I wonder if the religious conservatives really would have abandoned McCain without Palin on the ticket? I know they don't like him very much but whatever his perceived flaws, he has a pretty solid pro-life record. I agree that Huckabee is probably the leading contender at this point, although his populism doesn't sit well with the business wing of the party. Romney comes across as an empty suit (IMHO anyway) and is tarnished with the legacy of the Massachusetts universal health care system.

      Of course it's entirely possible that some unknown candidate will come out of nowhere and capture the GOP nomination. If a former State Senator whom didn't even complete one term in the US Senate can be a serious candidate.......

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    77. Re:!change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if anyone is serious about libertarianism then they're of a certain type, obviously

      By not even attempting to prove this, you admit that it's a lie.

    78. Re:!change by armanox · · Score: 1

      Gov. Palin was also quite aware of that if you actually heard what she said.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    79. Re:!change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OH yuck foo. You know not of what you speak.

    80. Re:!change by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Uuuuhhh...dude? How exactly do you figure it is "one party rule" when the repubs say "NO!" to just about everything (except for tax breaks for the wealthy and Supply Side Jesus) whereas you can get 100 Democrats in a room and they can't even decide what to order for lunch? Hell Obama can't even get the health care bill he wants passed through HIS OWN PARTY because the Democrats can't agree on jack!

      I think the problem is like you say "one party rule" but not like you think. We pretty much have the republicans and.....well that is pretty much it, because there really ain't a democratic party, it is a bunch of wildly conflicted bunches, from ultra liberal Nancy to Blue dogs, to everything in between. And whereas the repubs might disagree in private they fall like good little soldiers into line when the party says jump. The democrats wouldn't fall into line on squat if you put guns to their head and started counting down. hell they would just begin arguing whether the count ended on one or zero!

      And sadly the fiscal conservatives have been run out of the repubs by the neocons and the bible thumpers, which do NOT fit even the name conservative, as in "to conserve"? Their answer is MORE- More government control, more authoritarian policies, more power. So really, if you think about it, you might as well just flip a quarter dude, because it is like choosing the "best" truck stop whore: either way you are gonna regret it tomorrow and feel dirty as you do it.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    81. Re:!change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did anyone even know what the fuck the Bush doctrine was before Katie explained it? I sure as hell didn't. WTF kind of bullshit question was that anyway? Do you really think Obama has scored major points with Putin? He's certainly bent over backwards trying to please the rest of the world. How's that working out for him exactly? Far as I can tell the rest of the world, including Putin couldn't give a fuck less about our interests. That ain't gonna change regardless of who's in charge.

    82. Re:!change by stuboogie · · Score: 1

      "~1,000,000 unnecessary civilian deaths"

      Really?? I would sure like to see your source for that casualty count that can be directly linked to U.S. military action.

      That number is well above any figure I can find and the ones I find include all "violent deaths" whether they directly relate to the U.S. presence or not.

      As though the U.S. is responsible for every murder committed in Iraq or Afghanistan just because we're there.

      In addition, to suggest that the Iraq or Afghanistan war compares in any way to "the holocaust, the soviet gulags, or pol pots killing fields" shows how much of a douche bag you are.

    83. Re:!change by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...radical notions (like going back to the Gold Standard)....

      Going back to having a medium of exchange that has real value, rather than the fiat money we have today is not all that radical. For most of human history, the medium of exchange, money, was always a commodity that had intrinsic value, because it was rare in that society in which it was used. In Roman times for example, salt was often used for trade, because it took effort and work to obtain. We still use the word salary which comes from the Latin word for salt. Gold was used, because it is rare, and also, unlike salt, is quite durable, and portable. Only in our time, has the medium of exchange, money, been assigned an arbitrary value, not having any value of its own.

      In ancient times, when a governments or whoever controlled the money wanted to have more of it, could not arbitrarily print it or even, as it is done today, simply electronically create it out of nothing. I will never forget my grandparents telling me about the time in their life when it would take a whole wheelbarrow full of money, German paper money that is, to buy a few loaves of bread.

      Will some future generation, whom we are now putting into debt, ever repay it? I highly doubt that.

      --
      All theory is gray
    84. Re:!change by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Democracy is not a 'fait accompli' it is a work in progress and that's what it takes a lot of work by it's citizens. Are Obama and the Democrats perfect, of course not but they are a significant improvement upon the previous bunch of flagrant crooks and deceivers and that is the point. Each cycle you work to achieve a better government than the last time around.

      Globally pretty much every democratic society dropped the bundle over the last twenty years as they fell into the mass media morass of lies and public relations, as corporate executives via marketing dollars effectively distorted the political system and defined and controlled public debate, so that those same corporate executives could basically steal from the rich and poor alike and, of course strip mine the middle class. The unyielding reality of the episode is that millions of people died to enrich a bunch of corporate executives, lobbyists, corrupt politicians and of course not to forget their quisling running dog, talking heads, the news and opinion presenters who will tell any lie they are paid to.

      You want better government put in more effort, no party illusions of perfection, pay attention and when disingenuous corrupt politicians turn up, regardless of political parties toss them out and replace them, hopefully with someone better and repeat and repeat and repeat (a life's work for responsible citizens). It really does not take all that much effort especially with the power of the web to discover and disseminate information of genuine public interest and when it comes to voting, vote red, blue or green(the new third choice) or even independent, based on how well the previous sitting member performed and how likely it is that the other possible choice's are going to perform better.

      It took twenty to thirty years to pretty much fuck things up and, don't be surprised if it takes that long to really fix it, hell, the US has twenty odd thousand lobbyists that it has to cull and that slimy lot will tell every imaginable lie and provide every possible vice in order to preserve their corruptive influence and their source of profit and power.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    85. Re:!change by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      So, you're saying that he's still infinitely more qualified for the job than GWB ever was? (I'm sorry but while I generally don't trust political leaders who are a bit too great at speaking I must say that I have just as little faith in a nuclear-armed man who is unable to speak before a crowd for more than a minute without coming off as an idiot)

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    86. Re:!change by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Uuuuhhh...dude? How exactly do you figure it is "one party rule"

      Maybe the fact that the Democrats spent $787,000,000,000 of our money on a stimulus that wasn't without a single Republican vote in the House and only three in the Senate?

      Hell Obama can't even get the health care bill he wants passed through HIS OWN PARTY because the Democrats can't agree on jack!

      Perhaps if he paid more than lip service to all those promises he made during the campaign about a new kind of politics he could have gotten a bill drafted with the input of most members of Congress rather than just the selected few in the Democratic leadership? Yeah, the far left wouldn't have been very happy about it, but I'll wager he could have found 60 votes in the Senate and would have ended up with a plan that smelled better than the one they are considering now.

      well that is pretty much it, because there really ain't a democratic party, it is a bunch of wildly conflicted bunches, from ultra liberal Nancy to Blue dogs, to everything in between

      That's pretty much the definition of a 'governing coalition'. It's not supposed to be easy.....

      So really, if you think about it, you might as well just flip a quarter dude, because it is like choosing the "best" truck stop whore: either way you are gonna regret it tomorrow and feel dirty as you do it.

      Right now we need the GOP to control one or both houses of Congress. If they manage to take back the White House in 2012 (not likely but anything is possible, isn't it?) then I'll worry. The fact does remain though that it was divided government in the 90s that brought us a balanced budget and Federal surplus. That hasn't happened in my lifetime with single party control. Has it in yours?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    87. Re:!change by Yoozer · · Score: 1

      Going back to having a medium of exchange that has real value

      What real value are you talking about?

      You can dig it out of the ground, and the only thing that happens is that it's refined, poured in the shape of bars - only to be put in the ground again. It's soft, so it's useless to make tools out of. Since it's soft, it's also useless to make money out of since you can just carve it to pieces and decrease the weight a little bit; the original salami slicing. It's ridiculously heavy, so forget moving it quickly if you have to bail out. Worst part? There's a good chance you'll find an entire asteroid made out of it, which immediately plunges the value since it's no longer rare. You can't eat it. You can't drink it. It won't warm you. It won't comfort you. You can't do those things with fiat money either, but at least it's not trying to delude you that it has "value".

    88. Re:!change by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Well, we all know that David Hume could out consume Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    89. Re:!change by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      The ability to speak well in public doesn't mean jack shit about a person's intelligence or leadership abilities. As much as I dislike Bush, he still is a hell of a lot more of a leader than Obama.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    90. Re:!change by arminw · · Score: 1

      ....What real value are you talking about?....

      The medium of exchange we use today, what we call money, takes no effort or work to produce. Whoever controls the production of it, usually governments, can arbitrarily, produce as much or as little as desired. Anybody can with hard labor mine gold or harvest salt wherever it is found, but, if anybody except those who are authorized, produces a modern medium of exchange, it is called counterfeiting and they are put in prison.

      Historically, it has always taken considerable effort and work to come up with a given quantity of money. This is no longer true, because money can be created with little or no effort in our time of history. Thus, whatever entity controls the production of money today, can determine its value by producing, arbitrarily, a lot or a little. Whether this is good or bad, depends solely on the integrity and responsibility of those authorized to create money out of thin air.

      --
      All theory is gray
    91. Re:!change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehe!

    92. Re:!change by Yoozer · · Score: 1

      Anybody can with hard labor mine gold or harvest salt wherever it is found

      There's no gold in the ground here in Europe. There's lots of gold in Africa - but you can't harvest it because consortiums have bought up the ground. To see what happens in the worst-case scenario, simply look at African history, and to see the integrity of consortiums, just look at DeBeers (diamonds, but still artificially kept scarce and with dehumanizing conditions for the people performing the hard labor. To make it worse, diamonds aren't even rare.).

      If you want to have an effective currency for everyone, forget gold. Consider energy. At least that's of real, actual value, because it gets something done. The best part is that it encourages people to find new ways to counterfeit it - e.g. produce it at lower cost, lower effort and environmental impact, benefiting all.

    93. Re:!change by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Meh. If I'd left it out they would have responded anyways.

    94. Re:!change by Golddess · · Score: 1

      I voted for Obama [...] Why? Two words: Caribou Barbie.

      Thank you for reinforcing our "two"-party system.

      Until more people are willing to "throw away" their vote on a 3rd party (no I am not advocating a specific 3rd party), we will never experience real change.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    95. Re:!change by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...There's lots of gold in Africa...

      I was not so much advocating for going back to gold or any other commodity to serve as a medium of exchange. However, in a system such as we have today, where the medium of exchange, money, is arbitrarily valued, it can be taken away from you, if you have any money, by the stroke of a pen, or in more modern terms, by a few bits changed in a computer. This is what happened to my grandparents in Germany. They lost their life savings.

      (....Consider energy. At least that's of real, actual value....)
      It is true that energy has real value, but it isn't very good as a medium of exchange. How can the energy take the place of cash or gold? How do you propose to trade some unit of energy for a loaf of bread? I think the system we have now is not bad in and of itself, as long as the people who control the creation of money are responsible and not selfish about it. There are many things that we have today, that our ancestors never even dreamed of. Fiat money is only one of these.

      --
      All theory is gray
  2. oh joy. by Hinhule · · Score: 1

    yeah that organized crime commited by pirates is really bad for your nation.

    I wonder how many deaths are attributed to copyright infringement each year to warrant a special government interest.

    1. Re:oh joy. by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yeah that organized crime commited by pirates is really bad for your nation.

      It is if your nation makes billions of dollars developing movies and music. Anyone find it interesting that we routinely run massive trade deficits with China but stand mute while their Government tacitly condones piracy on an industrialized scale? As much as I despise the mafia there are real people working in these industries. It's a safe assumption they don't want to work for free. Can't we find some balance on this issue somewhere between "some teenagers downloaded Britney Spears, lock 'em up!" and "information wants to be free"?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:oh joy. by causality · · Score: 3, Interesting

      yeah that organized crime commited by pirates is really bad for your nation.

      It is if your nation makes billions of dollars developing movies and music. Anyone find it interesting that we routinely run massive trade deficits with China but stand mute while their Government tacitly condones piracy on an industrialized scale? As much as I despise the mafia there are real people working in these industries. It's a safe assumption they don't want to work for free. Can't we find some balance on this issue somewhere between "some teenagers downloaded Britney Spears, lock 'em up!" and "information wants to be free"?

      We will have that balance the moment our social and governmental attitude towards the media companies consists of: "adapt your business model to the 21st century and create an online product that people want to buy, or go bankrupt. Your choice." Until then we're trying to make sure that buggy whip manufacturers still have jobs after the advent of the automobile.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    3. Re:oh joy. by Reason58 · · Score: 1

      If only there was some sort of equilibrium. A "balancing point" if you will between the perceived value to the consumer and the price of a good or service. The only way to fix this is with more laws! Congress get on this fast!

    4. Re:oh joy. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Anyone find it interesting that we routinely run massive trade deficits with China but stand mute while their Government tacitly condones piracy on an industrialized scale?

      I would, if it were true. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE50P5XZ20090126

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    5. Re:oh joy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't we find some balance on this issue somewhere between "some teenagers downloaded Britney Spears, lock 'em up!" and "information wants to be free"?

      Sure. But they started it. Until DRM is gone, piracy is the only way to get certain things. So until they choose otherwise, piracy needs to be protected. Drop the DRM, sell me video files that just work, and not only will I no longer be downloading, but I won't be seeding either.

    6. Re:oh joy. by Shakrai · · Score: 0, Redundant

      There's already online versions of music. You can buy tracks for $0.99 from Amazon with no DRM whatsoever. They come in a nearly universal (mp3) format that is easily converted to other formats and which can run on just about anything. For slightly more you can purchase the same product from the Apple Store. Yet people continue to pirate music in fairly significant numbers. Could it just be that free > pay?

      Movies are trickier. Not aware of any online movie distribution systems that aren't laced with DRM or locked into a specific vendors product. But if the music example is telling it wouldn't matter if there were -- people would keep right on pirating them.

      The industry did miss the boat with online distribution but I can't be the only one that thinks that excuse is wearing thin as a justification for piracy.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    7. Re:oh joy. by dslbrian · · Score: 1

      Actually I take this in a completely different context. For Congress and the White House to talk about the ails of piracy is a situation so loaded with irony it's almost painful. It's like Congress holding a summit on the ails of substance abuse and extramarital affairs.

      If anything, Congress and the White House would school the MPAA and RIAA on how to best extract money from future generations (of course unfounded taxation to support a huge freaking bureaucracy isn't piracy - why that's just your gov't at work).

    8. Re:oh joy. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I bet if the cost went down that would change.

      The reality is the general public seems to not value music at $0.99 cents a song. For me it would have to either be cheaper or not be lossy. I will continue to buy cds and rip them.

    9. Re:oh joy. by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Good point.

      It's their custom crafted laws that make my use of the 1000 or so DVDs I have bought from them something that can be construed as a crime.

      You would think that they would want it to be easier to buy than it is to "steal". Yet they soldier on with their self-destructive artistic megalomania. Most consumers are too lazy to use BitTorrent. If you lead them by the nose to a payware option they will use it. iTunes should be ample demonstration of this.

      The longer the "void" remains unfilled, the more likely it is that people in general will get comfortable with BitTorrent or it's replacement.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    10. Re:oh joy. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The reality is that millions of people are consumers of digital music from iTunes and Amazon. Many people seem to have decided that $0.99 is a fair price for the product they are receiving.

      Now I'm personally with you -- I would rather buy a used CD and get a lossless format -- but I don't think that gives me justification to start downloading lossy formats for free.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    11. Re:oh joy. by causality · · Score: 1

      There's already online versions of music. You can buy tracks for $0.99 from Amazon with no DRM whatsoever. They come in a nearly universal (mp3) format that is easily converted to other formats and which can run on just about anything. For slightly more you can purchase the same product from the Apple Store. Yet people continue to pirate music in fairly significant numbers. Could it just be that free > pay?

      Movies are trickier. Not aware of any online movie distribution systems that aren't laced with DRM or locked into a specific vendors product. But if the music example is telling it wouldn't matter if there were -- people would keep right on pirating them.

      The industry did miss the boat with online distribution but I can't be the only one that thinks that excuse is wearing thin as a justification for piracy.

      The industry also earned itself a great deal of ill will, which definitely has a non-zero contribution towards piracy. Lots of people who would not pirate from a more respectable organization have no qualms about doing it to a cartel that was willing to subject minor children to interrogation and various other legal proceedings as part of an intimidation campaign. Right or wrong.

      Also note, I said an online product that people want to buy. That may or may not mean buying songs and albums. It may also mean a subscription where you can access a certain amount of music for a flat monthly fee. It could mean some innovation we have not yet thought of. What that consists of is the problem of the media companies.

      But really, we have some bad priorities. It would be better for all record companies to go bankrupt than to have our legal system compromised in such a wholesale fasion by some narrow interests that don't represent most Americans.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    12. Re:oh joy. by steelfood · · Score: 1

      The differenciation lies between for-profit, and not-for-profit infringement. Limiting the former limits commercial rights. Limiting the latter limits personal rights. The "balance" to copyright legislation you desire lies smack in between these two.

      Unfortunately, the media distribution industry wants to make money from both. They're not interested in personal versus commercial, they want money either way.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    13. Re:oh joy. by melikamp · · Score: 1

      Hmm. May be that's their plan. USA will get rid of the national debt by suing Chinese people over copyright violations and slapping them with statutory penalties. Let's see, with $150000 per infringement, they only need to sue for 80 million violations to get back 12 trillion or so. They just need stronger copyright treaties.

    14. Re:oh joy. by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      The problem is that people don't want to go to a thousand different places for content but they want to be able to go to a few different places. A user going to the Pirate Bay will find anything in digital format whether it be a movie, a book, or music, or games, or anything. Only Amazon is positioned to provide this service and even then, the catalog is limited. Start-ups will fail because they don't have a large initial catalog and 99 cents per song adds up real quick making for a $16 cd which is the standard price. I'm aware albums bought as a whole cost a little less but the reality is that the price has stayed the same for something that now costs much much less to produce.

      It's the Hulu dilemma. The initial glimmer wares off and you find yourself wanting to watch a show that's not on the site so you end up as Casttv.com and never go back as there are no intrusive ads that are showing up more and more often. Of course Hulu is special as they detect when you don't download ads and make you wait 30 seconds to resume content instead of 15. They actually tell you to turn off your ad blocking software. Why would I install it if I wanted to see ads? The problem there is that advertising went way over the top and even that is for a lot of reasons so the issue snowballs. All of this crap you deal with trying to stay legal. Go to the Pirate Bay, download your torrent and away you go. It's much much simpler and you don't have thousands of annoying ads and you get more content. I can't imagine why people would want that!

      I would be curious about the number of people that purchase from iTunes that still pirate. I would guess that they are different demographics but admittedly I don't have any evidence for that assertion. All the BS has driven me to explore different music not from the big labels. They let me download their songs from their site. If I think their album is high quality then I buy it. Magnatunes is a great model.

    15. Re:oh joy. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      What does it matter if it's not-for-profit infringement when it's done on the scale that modern P2P technology allows? We aren't talking about your next door neighbor making you a copy of the latest Britney Spears CD. We are talking about your next door neighbor making that copy available for thousands of people that he doesn't even know.

      Now I happen to think that the RIAA campaign is outrageous but you can't really rationalize the behavior of the aforementioned neighbor either.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    16. Re:oh joy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that is a safe assumption, however they are not entitled to work forever in the industry they currently work in. copyright law as it stands is beyond the powers of congress as set by the constitution. the correct action is not to keep the law as it is because an industry depends on it, but to reform copyright law and let the industry figure it out or die.

    17. Re:oh joy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have something like this, it's called Netflix.

      All the movies/shows you want streaming for a cheap monthly rate.

      Eventually that system will replace cable all together.

      Now if only it could start supporting music / newer releases / buying movies / Linux...

    18. Re:oh joy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FACT: your mega-movie-studio-made shit costs EXACTLY what my filmed-in-my-back-yard stuff does to reproduce and distribute.

      Practically nothing.

      A matinée around here is $8, a whopping 50 cents cheaper than the regular price, and its only a matinée if it ENDS before 4pm. WTF is that??? When I was a kid, a movie that started at 5:10pm was matinée priced at like $4.50, with $6 being the regular prices.

      Is the leading actor REALLY worth $30 million? Come the fuck on! Hollywood is the only thing I can think of whose valuation of things is worse than the medical industry.

      And can you explain to me why the movie SOUNDTRACK costs $19 while I can buy the fucking FILM on DVD for $15?

      I'm not even going to get into the fucking musicians who should be out blooding playing live shows to earn a living rather than thinking they have earned a gold plated pool cuz they wrote a recorded ONE album.

      Fuck every last one of them, companies use my "intellectual property" every goddamn day to earn more money and I don't see any royalties off that shit, but I am way far from crying poverty that's for certain. Time Hollywood and company stepped into the real world.

    19. Re:oh joy. by slashqwerty · · Score: 1

      Can't we find some balance on this issue somewhere between "some teenagers downloaded Britney Spears, lock 'em up!" and "information wants to be free"?

      Yes, we can. But when copyright lasts until the authors' great-grandchildren are moving into nursing homes the balance just doesn't exist. When copyright lasts longer than the medium on which it is distributed, balance doesn't exist. When the publisher has complete control over the means with which the work is played, balance doesn't exist. When software is distributed in binary form with no access to the source and a license that prohibits reverse engineering, balance again does not exist.

      Historically, congress has sought to 'balance' copyright between authors and publishers. The public has never come into the equation. The promotion of progress and the useful arts has not come into the equation. The public domain has been cast aside as though it does not matter.

      As for your balance between "some teenagers downloaded Britney Spears, lock 'em up!" and "information wants to be free"? This sort of thing should be more akin to a speeding ticket. And there should be a rich public domain available for people to work with.

      Really, I think if copyright were balanced you would see a lot more people speaking out against copyright infringement on the grounds of fairness. You would see people reporting infringement knowing the penalties are reasonable and the infringing act can't be rationalized due to crooked laws. You would see people pointing to culturally significant works entering the public domain every year.

      So balance is possible but we are far, far from it.

    20. Re:oh joy. by MacWiz · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to figure how why the MPAA is in such dire need of protection. 2009 was the best box-office year of all time.

      I wonder how many deaths are attributed to copyright infringement each year to warrant a special government interest.

      Not that many really. Mostly just the older artists that starve to death when the royalty checks stop coming.

    21. Re:oh joy. by dangitman · · Score: 1

      We will have that balance the moment our social and governmental attitude towards the media companies consists of: "adapt your business model to the 21st century and create an online product that people want to buy, or go bankrupt.

      No, it wouldn't change. People would still be bitching over the slightest cost, or even the idea that businesses exist. This is easy to see online - for example, the people who bitch over iPhone applications that are either free or cost 99 cents. Or the people who claimed they would buy downloadable music if it didn't have DRM, but then found something else to complain about when Amazon and iTunes released DRM-free downloads. Plenty of companies have adapted to the 21st Century, but the world is never short of retarded fuckwads who like to whine. I'm afraid that self-important bitches are a universal constant of human civilization. For another example, see Slashdot.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  3. Hurrah! by foldingstock · · Score: 1

    Yeah, this will work. Money well spent gentlemen.

  4. I'm really not surprised. by Quantos · · Score: 1

    I'm sure the industry has probably made sizable contributions on the political front, exactly for this reason. Judging from the business practices in the past it sure won't stop anytime soon. It makes 'Payola' seem somewhat harmless. Of course that's just my $ 0.02.

    --
    Some people are only alive because it's against the law for me to hunt them down and kill them.
  5. Well by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I guess the EFF's and other consumer groups' invites must have gotten lost in the mail.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Well by yincrash · · Score: 2, Interesting

      tbh, it'd be nice if even creator rights advocates were there at least. mpaa and riaa do not truly have the content creators best interests at heart

    2. Re:Well by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Why would they want the public to be there? They just get in the way.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    3. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jews.

    4. Re:Well by mpe · · Score: 1

      I guess the EFF's and other consumer groups' invites must have gotten lost in the mail.

      Or sent to Somalia by "mistake".

  6. And I thought... by rainer_d · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    ...they were going to discuss about the problem with "real" piracy.
    If anything, this should encourage the pirates operating in the Arabian sea near Somalia: unless they start bootlegging songs and movies, they should be relatively save and Uncle Sam will not go after them.
    At least not in a big, coordinated way.
    In essence, they, the ship-wrecking, people-killing pirates are a mere nuisance, while copyright-violating pirates mean the end of civilization is near.

    Or maybe it's just another episode of "Politicians, lobbyist and the low-hanging fruit - how I learned to ignore the big problems while creating and appearing to solve small and irrelevant ones myself".

    --
    Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
    1. Re:And I thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you think really caused the global economic crisis?

      People downloading MP3s.

    2. Re:And I thought... by east+coast · · Score: 1

      In all honesty? DVD bootlegs are probably funneling more money to the same types of people who rob and murder for a living than what happens in Somalia. It's just a gentler hand and it's mostly socially acceptable.

      Not to mention that the US government has a much wider range of jurisdiction and tools to work with when it comes down to bootlegged goods that sell on our lands.

      Plus, who says we only have to deal with one problem at a time? The issues off the African coast will not be solved by one nation. Washington is not the place to start the kinds of discussions that will really help the situation.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    3. Re:And I thought... by Thoreauly+Nuts · · Score: 1

      And I thought they were going to discuss about the problem with "real" piracy...the pirates operating in the Arabian sea near Somalia

      What makes you think the Somali pirates are actually "real" pirates?

      Read this: http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/3-toxic-waste-behind-somali-pirates/

      It might change your views about why they do what they do and realize that the term "pirate" is little more than a pejorative term for those who don't kowtow to economic imperialism...

      --
      "Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves. " ---Henry David Thoreau
    4. Re:And I thought... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      ...they were going to discuss about the problem with "real" piracy.

      Me too - I guess the shipping industry wasn't real high on the contributors list.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  7. As a firm believer in tooth fairy and santa clause by fregare · · Score: 0

    Yes I trust our goberment in protecting us from ourselves. They have our best interests at heart. They really do.

  8. wtf?!? by Weezul · · Score: 1

    Hollywood has considered redirecting any significant effort towards people who actually press pirate DVD instead of their own fans? Seriously?

    Oh! I see, they want congress to pay for it, they'll keep using their own lawyers on their fans.

    It's obviously good if these sorts of large scale industrial pirates are sued for copyright infringement. I'd strongly support a fund that aided small publishers when going up against pirate publishers, especially the largest pirates that are members of the RIAA and MPAA. *But* I simply don't believe these large guys need $30 million in aid for tracking down the large scale pirates.

    If anything, the RIAA members should have all their copyrights revoked for abuse, and rights should be restored to the people who created the original works, bypassing the old "work for hire" provisions that Hollywood snuck in.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  9. Makes nominal strategic sense... by nebaz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As much as I hate the idea that the Federal Government is in the interest of helping the RIAA, it seems that "intellectual property" is just about the only thing left that our country exports. I can understand thinking that it should be a national economic priority if you think in those terms. That doesn't address the reality of the "value" of said property, or its constitutional justification, however.

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    1. Re:Makes nominal strategic sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget, America also exports war.

    2. Re:Makes nominal strategic sense... by MeNeXT · · Score: 1

      We didn't care to protect any other industry, why so much fuss on this one? Oh yeah, it's not about the artist its about big business.

      --
      DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
    3. Re:Makes nominal strategic sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the only thing slashdot kids export is bitter self-entitlement and whining from their moms basements, which is why they don't have the fucking basic common sense to see how being pro-piracy is just putting a big fucking nail in the coffin of their own job prospects.
      Dorks.

    4. Re:Makes nominal strategic sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Building a large segment of your economy on a government backed inefficiency is a recipe for a meltdown in that industry.

      IP may be a large export for us, but if we continue to try to prop it up, it will eventually crumble in the same way that every other industry has. Eventually, other countries will demand home grown entertainment. They'll be concerned with movie budgets, and won't see a huge budget as advertising. They'll produce good movies and end up being more profitable. At some point they'll either buy our movie companies or try to compete with them. In either scenario, the American industry isn't prepared to stop anything.

      The best thing you can do in business is stay hungry and try to compete. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Piracy isn't the problem for the movie industry anymore. Free distribution is. At any rate, if we decide that another American industry should be propped up, we'll lose another American industry.

  10. Information just wants to be free by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As we said early on, and have continually been proven right, Information just wants to be free.

    And no amount of trying to stop that will end up working in the end.

    Restore copyright to 17 years renewable only by the author of the work, remove patent protection for software, and let's get back to creating and away from lining CEO's pockets.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Information just wants to be free by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt the brief time span that copyrights have been extended is more than just a blip along the timeline from the dawn of time until when our sun novas. Besides, most civilizations on our planet have not lasted even 1000 years, so it's unlikely your premise is even remotely correct.

      All things pass. Even the farce which is IP.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    2. Re:Information just wants to be free by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Restore copyright to 17 years renewable only by the author of the work, remove patent protection for software, and let's get back to creating and away from lining CEO's pockets.

      Copyright was never 17 years.
      It started out as 14 years + a 14 year renewal.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#History

      Anyways, the USA can't make any meaningful changes to copyright law without going through the World Trade Organization.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:Information just wants to be free by chucklebutte · · Score: 0

      ^ what this guy said.

    4. Re:Information just wants to be free by east+coast · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Kinda off topic but... The sun will never super nova unless it gains some serious mass. And the earth is going to be uninhabitable to life as we know it for a few billion years before the sun effectively burns itself out into a cinder of iron and carbon.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    5. Re:Information just wants to be free by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      Anyways, the USA can't make any meaningful changes to copyright law without going through the World Trade Organization.

      Actually they can, my understanding is that a constitutional amendment (and only an amendment) would supersede the treaty without renegotiating. Like that will ever happen.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    6. Re:Information just wants to be free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the hell not? It's not like they don't ignore international treaties at will in other cases.

    7. Re:Information just wants to be free by spartacus_prime · · Score: 1

      I think it may have been an unintentional joke -- the parent is arguing that the reforms proposed by the grandparent will never happen.

      --
      If you can read this, it means that I bothered to log in.
    8. Re:Information just wants to be free by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Restore copyright to 17 years renewable only by the author of the work, remove patent protection for software, and let's get back to creating and away from lining CEO's pockets.

      So when we do all this, it stops wanting to be free and this amount of trying will work in the end? Or does it still want to be free? That part isn't clear.

    9. Re:Information just wants to be free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyways, the USA can't make any meaningful changes to copyright law without going through the World Trade Organization.

      Bullshit. The USA is a sovereign nation. "International law" is a figure of speech insofar as it refers to domestic matters.

    10. Re:Information just wants to be free by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      As we said early on, and have continually been proven right, Information just wants to be free.

      And no amount of trying to stop that will end up working in the end.

      No, but governments can make life unbearable in its pursuit.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    11. Re:Information just wants to be free by Anarchduke · · Score: 1

      All things pass. Even the farce which is IP.

      I am sure it will. And since money influences policy decisions, I am quite sure all the money media companies make will go directly into the hands of the politicians to keep things the way they are. When you can come up with a bottomless well of cash to oppose them, then perhaps there will be Intellectual Property reform.

      As it stands now, things will change about 1000 years after the sun turns into a black hole.
      And yes, I realize the sun will never become a black hole.

      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    12. Re:Information just wants to be free by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      And yes, I realize the sun will never become a black hole.

      Not naturally, but if that's what's needed for information to be free a thousand years later, we could arrange something. I know a guy in the LHC...

    13. Re:Information just wants to be free by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Restore copyright to 17 years renewable only by the author of the work, remove patent protection for software, and let's get back to creating and away from lining CEO's pockets.

      What's the point? You have irrefutable proof that no amount of trying will stop information from being free (or people being greedy, apparently).

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    14. Re:Information just wants to be free by dangitman · · Score: 1

      As we said early on, and have continually been proven right, Information just wants to be free.

      When was this proven? Information is not a sentient entity, therefore, it can't "want" anything. Perhaps when you say "proven right" you mean "downright stupid"?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    15. Re:Information just wants to be free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second the motion!

    16. Re:Information just wants to be free by Kethinov · · Score: 1

      Restore copyright to 17 years renewable only by the author of the work

      If you truly want information to be free, then you should be advocating the legalization of all noncommercial copyright infringement. All this fussing about the length of copyright is completely irrelevant and arbitrary. I don't care if copyright lasts for four thousand years if noncommercial infringement is legal.

      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
  11. Wrong way round by newhoggy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Hollywood once again demonstrates its close ties to Washington DC"

    should be

    "Washington DC once again demonstrates its close ties to Hollywood"

    It's your political system that's broken - not Hollywood.

    1. Re:Wrong way round by bananaquackmoo · · Score: 5, Funny

      What... can't it be both?

    2. Re:Wrong way round by Rayonic · · Score: 1

      "Hollywood once again demonstrates its close ties to Washington DC"

      "Washington DC once again demonstrates its close ties to Hollywood"

      Ha, sounds like the Republican vs. Democratic versions of the relationship. Kind of a lame "In Soviet Russia..." style joke.

    3. Re:Wrong way round by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Too true. Hollywood was instrumental in getting Obama elected, and as a reward, he created a new, entirely pointless, position of "Hollywood Liason" that he gave to Kal Penn to repay him for all the hard work he did in getting Obama elected. That's why I laugh when Democrats complain about corruption with Republican politicians while they cheer on the corruption among Democrat politicians.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  12. Full text by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "are interested in are large-scale DVD bootleggers, not individual downloaders [for now]. "

    --
    Some days it's just not worth
    chewing through my restraints.
    1. Re:Full text by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "are interested in are large-scale DVD bootleggers, not individual downloaders [for now]. "

      You can scratch the "for now" even. Any laws that start in meetings like this aren't going to be "If you bootleg DVDs, you get punishment X per bootleg disk." they're going to be "If you infringe copyright, you get punishment X per infringement." where "infringe" can be taken to mean "bootleg, copy for a friend, download, upload, format shift for yourself, write an unfavorable online review of" and so on, however much the lawyers can twist the word and destroy the spirit in a court of law.

      See also: Laws against pedophiles and child pornographers that somehow apply to pairs of consenting teenagers and individual teenagers photographing themselves, laws against racketeers that apply to people not running a racket, laws against drug dealers that apply to people with a lot of cash, etc. etc. etc.

    2. Re:Full text by zullnero · · Score: 1

      With the numbers on the table, the only thing that 30 million could be effectively used for is ramping up police departments and the FBI for cracking down on large scale bootleg operations. Paranoia is one thing, but the numbers right there don't back that paranoia up. If the government were "getting serious" about illegal downloading, we're talking somewhere close to a billion to make a serious difference, along with massive regulations placed on ISPs and the major carriers where that cash would be used to enforce those regulations. They'd probably also have to meddle with the Fourth Amendment, because getting carriers to rat out potential terrorists is one thing, but getting the carriers to rat out a single mother who downloaded "Soul Plane" through bittorrent is another thing entirely. Meddling with the Fourth isn't going to be something that can be done at a whim. The last administration danced around it every way they could, and really, they got away with it because no one bothered to mount a serious case against them (for purely political reasons, of course) even though everyone knows full well they abused their power and circumvented the Constitution.

      So put away the tinfoil hat for a minute and use some common sense. Large scale bootleggers are criminals, plain and simple. They make it tougher for you to buy stuff legitimately, and they hurt a company's bottom line. Targeting individual downloaders wouldn't really be ultimately worth the government's time to properly enforce. The RIAA and CRAA and MPAA can cry about it all they want, but the floodgates of the Internet are open, and to close those gates would directly hurt a lot of other major corporate forces that would put up a heck of a big fight as well. The government can really only pay lip service and throw cash at fighting things that can give back real deliverable results, and fighting individual downloading can't do that.

    3. Re:Full text by sharkbiter · · Score: 0

      In short, 30 million tax payer dollars are going into this effort. I can think of a lot of better things that 30 million dollars could go into instead of a few individuals' bank accounts. As a tax payer, I insist that the Music Companies pay a reward to the hard working people who made it possible for them to do this.

    4. Re:Full text by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      With the numbers on the table, the only thing that 30 million could be effectively used for is ramping up police departments and the FBI for cracking down on large scale bootleg operations.

      Assume it is. How does Congress' budget change the summit at all? It's not a summit to discuss the money Congress earmarked, it's a summit to discuss piracy, so is probably only marginally related.

      Besides, Variety reported that representatives of Warner Music Group and the RIAA are there. If it's all about DVD copying, why is the music industry there? Protecting their tour video DVDs?

      Meddling with the Fourth isn't going to be something that can be done at a whim.

      And I don't expect anything a tenth as big as that directly out of this summit. I don't expect oak trees from acorns because of one good rain shower either. This could be the start of something. Maybe I'm wrong, I hope I'm wrong, but it's better to pay attention to possible problems when they're starting rather than when they're sitting on the President's desk waiting for his signature.

      So put away the tinfoil hat for a minute and use some common sense. Large scale bootleggers are criminals, plain and simple.

      And when we have proof that that's all Biden is convening this summit for, I'll start using my tinfoil for wrapping up foodstuffs. Current news items (in the past 2 hours) are talking a lot about copyright infringement, and not at all about DVD bootlegging. Further news items will help clarify that, so I'm willing to be proven wrong...

      ... except for the small fact that they've kicked the press out so we'll never find out what was said after that point. I guess they didn't want all those bootleggers who vote hearing about tough anti-bootlegging measures.

      Am I paranoid? Probably. Are they giving me reason to be paranoid? Definitely.

      Targeting individual downloaders wouldn't really be ultimately worth the government's time to properly enforce.

      And pork barrel projects are inefficient and waste time and money and aren't worth it. So they never happen.

    5. Re:Full text by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      The laws against teens taking indecent images of themselves which you refer to is because they are still not deemed to have a reasonable view of repercussions of their actions. Kids to stupid things, and kids are vindictive. A spurned lover at the age of 16 or 17 could post pictures online, or send them to friends or family of the person pictured. Granted an adult can do the same, but they more often than not have a much more grounded reality than a teen, and are often much more aware of the social, emotional, and legal repercussions which can befall them. I suppose it comes down to how you view other people's skin, and your views on sexuality really, but that's more a personal thing. To stop people taking advantage of those who may not know any better, there needs to be an arbitrary cut-off.

      FWIW, I think the enforcement and punishments for offences like putting 17 year olds who take topless photos of themselves on the sex offenders register is ludicrous. I still tell the young people I encounter to be careful, though, if conversation sways onto law or current affairs. A lot don't realise how dangerous it is.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  13. And as usual...... by netruner · · Score: 1

    Who is representing the consumer's interests? Does any of these people have a grasp on topics such as "fair use" - you know, that thing that the DMCA wasn't supposed to hinder (DMCA sec 1201(C)(1)). Well, I guess some do, but they're the ones trying to destroy that concept.

    Reference: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#1201

    --



    DISCLAIMER: This post was not checked for speling and grammar- if you complain- you're a whiner
    1. Re:And as usual...... by calmofthestorm · · Score: 1

      The same people who are representing our interests on ACTA.

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    2. Re:And as usual...... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Who is representing the consumer's interests?

      Nobody is representing your interests if you call yourself "consumer", other than the companies that want to sell to you. A consumer's interest is only to consume, so why would a consumer have any problem with meetings like this? After all, the aim is to benefit the companies that feed the consumers.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  14. Unfortunately... by rickb928 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    " the sort of intellectual property criminals they are interested in are large-scale DVD bootleggers, not individual downloaders"

    The law won't discriminate. Neither will the lawyers.

    If they write it, someone will sue.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  15. Fair and Balanced by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hollywood once again demonstrates its close ties to Washington DC, regardless of who is in power

    Industries that generate significant export dollars are guaranteed a hearing in Washington.

    Bonus points for cultural exports.

    If you are a Brit, ask yourself what the return has been on Sherlock Holmes, The Beatles, James Bond, Harry Potter.

    Bonus points for clean industries. Bonus points for tech. Bonus points for skilled labor and labor-intensive industries.

    1. Re:Fair and Balanced by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Industries that donate significant campaign dollars are guaranteed a hearing in Washington.

      Fixed that for you :)

      (Snarkiness aside I do get and agree with your main point)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Fair and Balanced by cpghost · · Score: 1

      Industries that generate significant export dollars are guaranteed a hearing in Washington.

      True.

      Bonus points also for an industry that has the power to sway public opinion at home. MPAA and RIAA can easily make and destroy politicians.

      Bonus points for cultural exports.

      Not so many anymore. In the 70-ies and 80-ies, a LOT more US films and series were available in third world countries. Due to insane licensing costs nowadays, US cultural exports have dropped significantly there.

      Bonus points for clean industries.

      To decrypt Blu-Ray DRM in consumer players requires significantly more electricity than, say, DVD. Maybe they're not so green after all?

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    3. Re:Fair and Balanced by westlake · · Score: 1

      industries that donate significant campaign dollars are guaranteed a hearing in Washington.

      Fixed that for you :)

      (Snarkiness aside I do get and agree with your main point)

      Every industry wants to be heard in Washington, but the entertainment industry is uniquely positioned to be effective.

      It is important in the big electoral states like California, Florida, New York. It does not make grandiose demands on the treasury.

      It can be a potent political force.

      I would argue that if you want to move the masses, you don't want Michael Moore at your back. You want Disney and Pixar:

      "Victory Through Air Power," "Our Friend The Atom," "Man In Space," "Mars and Beyond," "Wall-E"

    4. Re:Fair and Balanced by MeNeXT · · Score: 1

      Get labor out of your sentence. Nobody cares about the common folk.

      --
      DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
  16. !change nor the first time... by megamerican · · Score: 4, Informative

    This isn't surprising in the least. Less than two weeks ago they had a workshop for Federal employees on openness in government and it was closed to the public.

    Don't forget that Obama promised to have debates on healthcare on C-Span. (google cache)

    I’m going to have all the negotiations around a big table,” Obama said. “We’ll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies — they’ll get a seat at the table, they just won’t be able to buy every chair. But what we’ll do is we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who are making arguments on behalf of drug companies or the insurance companies.

    Then he goes on to have closed door meetings with drug companies and insurance companies. Not to mention that he promised to not support any health care bill that forced people to get healthcare.

    You'll find very few people here who ever worshiped the Obamassiah. It's no secret that the Dems are just as much in the pocket of the media companies as the Republicans.

    As a person who was continually modded down for saying there was (and will be) no difference between Obama and McCain before and during the election I find your statement very funny.

    --
    If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    1. Re:!change nor the first time... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Of course there is a difference.

      Dem: Less war, Less regulating morality, more bending over backwards for Big Media.

      Repub: More war, More regulating morality, less bending over backwards for Big Media.

      Not that Republicans are really war hungry, but they are in the pocket of arms manufacturers.

    2. Re:!change nor the first time... by causality · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As a person who was continually modded down for saying there was (and will be) no difference between Obama and McCain before and during the election I find your statement very funny.

      It's not about the candidates, for they are like puppets. It's about the monied interests who finance their campaigns and put them into office. That's where the real power is, and it's not up for a vote. It's more of a plutocracy. Whether it's Obama or McCain who won the election, either of them has a career in politics only because they know better than to piss off the people who had the clout to put them into office. Therefore, those people always have their interests represented in Washington. Every candidate from either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party is elected only because those interests have carefully vetted him/her and are convinced that he/she is not going to rock that boat.

      The individual either understands this reality or chooses to believe in the fantasy that the popular vote for major-party candidates has the potential to change the status quo. That popular vote is the direct result of mass media, which in turn is the result of advertising dollars that the candidates receive from those monied interests. The only change permitted under this system is of the "becoming more so" variety. Using copyright law as an example, that's why it becomes more and more restrictive over time (becoming more of what it is) and it's why those restrictions are never reversed.

      People who can't understand this and people who are in denial about the fundamental brokenness of this system are going to get upset when you criticize a particular candidate. They can't imagine anything outside of the "Democrat or Republican" duality, and that's the real (and terrible) triumph of our current system. To those people, any negative statement about Candidate A must be equivalent to a positive statement about Candidate B. Asking them to see the fallacy of that kind of thinking is also a request to confront all of their insecurities that revolve around an extreme sense that "something's not right here", a task for which they may lack courage. In the absence of such courage, it's much easier for them to mod you down or insult you. Unfortunately neither response is very surprising when you consider the source.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    3. Re:!change nor the first time... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Repub: More war, More regulating morality, less bending over backwards for Big Media.

      Can you give any evidence of the last part of that claim?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:!change nor the first time... by Shakrai · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Dem: Less war, Less regulating morality, Less personal choice and liberty, more bending over backwards for Big Media.

      Repub: More war, More regulating morality, More personal choice and liberty, less bending over backwards for Big Media.

      Added one that you forgot.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:!change nor the first time... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      More personal choice and liberty?

      Please.

      Perhaps if you are church going conservative businessman.

      Or if you mean the freedom to be crushed by the wealthy.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    6. Re:!change nor the first time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, resisting gay, women's, and minority rights is "more personal choice and liberty".

    7. Re:!change nor the first time... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How can a party that regulates morality possibly advocate personal choice or liberty? Are we speaking the same language here?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    8. Re:!change nor the first time... by Shakrai · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      How about the liberty to keep and bear arms? How about the personal choice to go without health insurance if I deem that it to be in my best interest?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:!change nor the first time... by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      I think you forget that a republican congress passed the DMCA. They both bend over backwards for big media. It makes sense given that they need them for exposure to get re-elected.

    10. Re:!change nor the first time... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      You do realize it was the GOP that freed the slaves and that a higher percentage of GOP Congressman/Senators voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats, right?

      As far as gay rights go, the way you solve that whole issue is by getting Government out of the marriage business altogether. At it's heart marriage is nothing more than an agreement between two consenting adults. I'm unaware of any other such agreement that requires the consent of the Government in order to be enacted. Civil unions for everybody, homo and hetero. Leave the business of "marriage" to the churches.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    11. Re:!change nor the first time... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      You do realize that a significant majority of the Democrats in Congress feel that at least one part of the Bill of Rights is meaningless, right?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    12. Re:!change nor the first time... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Which party was the President who signed it into law a member of?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    13. Re:!change nor the first time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a higher percentage of GOP Congressman/Senators voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats

      Yeah, about all those racist southern Democrats who were furious over the Civil Rights Act... which party do you think they ended up in?

    14. Re:!change nor the first time... by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      He was a democrat, what's your point?

    15. Re:!change nor the first time... by roscivs · · Score: 1

      How about the liberty to keep and bear arms? How about the personal choice to go without health insurance if I deem that it to be in my best interest?

      You do realize you said, "more," not "different," right?

      --
      ~ roscivs
    16. Re:!change nor the first time... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Repub: More war, More regulating morality, More corporate choice and liberty, less bending over backwards for Big Media.

      Fixed that for you, fanboy.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    17. Re:!change nor the first time... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      You do realize that almost ever segregationist Democrat became a Republican after after the Voting Rights Act passed, taking over the party by the 80's, right? I presume you also know that Lyndon Johnson, who championed said act, was a Democrat?

      The Republican Party stopped being the "Party of Lincoln" a *LONG* time ago. These days a much more accurate description would be the "Party of Jefferson Davis."

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  17. Joe Biden? by NullProg · · Score: 2, Funny

    Vice President Joe Biden will be leading the summit to discuss organized cooperation between the federal government and the entertainment industry on all matters of piracy.

    You mean this Joe Biden: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=joe+biden+plagiarism&aq=0&oq=joe+biden+pl&aqi=g10

    Maybe someone will ask Joe the difference between bits in a track and the letters in a book.

    Enjoy,

    --
    It's just the normal noises in here.
  18. Now we know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    where to drop a bomb to rid us of all of the MPAA Assholes in one shot. It gets the RIAA as well. Sweet.

  19. Ummmm by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Except for the fact that Hollywood is a very minor part of the US economy compared to other areas. Intel alone has more revenue than everything Hollywood does. I'd buy this argument if the US economy was relying on Hollywood, but that just isn't the case. The biggest sector of the US economy is still manufacturing (and in fact the US still has the biggest manufacturing sector in the world). When you look at it, the movie and music industry just aren't that big a deal.

    So this really isn't based off of need, this isn't a "the government protects this or the economy sinks." This is a case of Hollywood spending lots of money to more or less buy off politicians.

    1. Re:Ummmm by Amouth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      if i remember the random story yesterday they are slated to break 30bn this year which puts them at 0.2% of the US GDP or better phrased 1/500th of the US GDP.

      0.2 doesn't sound like much but 1 in 500 is.. think if they where to disappear 1 in 500 people wouldn't have a livelihood.

      i'm not advocating for them - nor do i think the taxpayers should give them anything or pay for their troubles. BUT i think 1 in 500 is enough to justify a meeting at the white house.

      while there are bigger companies and sectors - Hollywood isn't small

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    2. Re:Ummmm by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      What it doesn't justify is special laws to protect them, especially when some special laws hurt other sectors, like electronics which is way larger.

    3. Re:Ummmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      think if they where to disappear 1 in 500 people wouldn't have a livelihood.

      "My business model depends on it" is no reason for a law.

    4. Re:Ummmm by Amouth · · Score: 1

      oh i fully agree - like i said i'm not on their side at all.

      what i was pointing out was that you seem to want to belittle the economic value that they bring to the bottom line, by comparing them to Intel or manufacturing.

      while i fully believe they are nothing more than corrupt bigots, you can't say they don't have an economic impact worthy of government attention.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    5. Re:Ummmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's consider this a minute.

      Perhaps the movie industry loses some money (after once again posting the highest profits ever in its existence this year) because people download a film instead of going to an overpriced theatre with crappy patrons and way overpriced concessions.

      But that money ISN'T lost to the economy.

      That money is spent elsewhere on gas, or electric bills, or clothes, perhaps even on baby formula.

      Yes ladies and gentlemen, piracy feeds babies.

    6. Re:Ummmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But how many people are prioritizing shitty movies over feeding their children and paying their bills?

      Because anyone that does needs to be removed from the gene pool.

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

      You are assuming 1 in 500 people actually benefit from this industry.

    8. Re:Ummmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or if they were to disappear that 0.2% of GDP could be redistributed to a more representative proportion of the population. Just because they have the wealth that if everything were distributed evenly would account for 1 in 500 people, dosn't mean they represent 1 in 500 people. If they go people will lose jobs, but the net effect might mean more less specialised less ridiculous paying jobs. How many people could be supported on the income of a single movie star?

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

      if i remember the random story yesterday they are slated to break 30bn this year which puts them at 0.2% of the US GDP or better phrased 1/500th of the US GDP.

      0.2 doesn't sound like much but 1 in 500 is.. think if they where to disappear 1 in 500 people wouldn't have a livelihood.

      i'm not advocating for them - nor do i think the taxpayers should give them anything or pay for their troubles. BUT i think 1 in 500 is enough to justify a meeting at the white house.

      while there are bigger companies and sectors - Hollywood isn't small

      How many people change employers every month in the US? I believe its well over 1 in 500...

    10. Re:Ummmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if i remember the random story yesterday they are slated to break 30bn this year which puts them at 0.2% of the US GDP or better phrased 1/500th of the US GDP.

      0.2 doesn't sound like much but 1 in 500 is.. think if they where to disappear 1 in 500 people wouldn't have a livelihood.

      ...editid... BUT i think 1 in 500 is enough to justify a meeting at the white house.

      while there are bigger companies and sectors - Hollywood isn't small

      Where do you get 1/500th of GDP directly corelates to 1 in 500 livelihoods? That doesn't clearly map 1 to1 at all.

  20. http://SHIP.BayWords.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BIDEN:

    There is a major difference between issues of theft and counterfeit in the commerce sector versus legitimate use in an educational and personal (non-economic) environment.

    YOU STILL FAIL TO MAKE CLEAR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE CONSTRAINTS, CHOOSING TO SUPPORT ORGANIZED CRIME OVER THE MAJORITY OF THE WORLDS' POPULATION.

    I strongly suggest you fix your policy and approach immediately, this is not the first time I've had to call you directly.

    http://SHIP.BayWords.com

  21. jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    get back to the oven kikes

  22. privacy summit? by CSEMike · · Score: 1

    perhaps someday privacy will be a concern, in addition to piracy. Until then, use OneSwarm.

  23. Though Entertainment Media is Commerce Only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Biden:

    There is a major difference between issues of theft and counterfeit in the commerce sector versus legitimate use in an educational and personal (non-economic) environment.

    YOU STILL FAIL TO MAKE CLEAR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE CONSTRAINTS, CHOOSING TO SUPPORT ORGANIZED CRIME OVER THE MAJORITY OF THE WORLDS' POPULATION.

    I strongly suggest you fix your policy and approach immediately, this is not the first time I've had to call you directly.

    And check your pegged budgets: http://ship.baywords.com

  24. Piracy at sea by flandar · · Score: 1

    Was I the only one who hoped this was an effort to address the real issue of pirates off the coast of Somalia? Millions of dollars in ransoms being funneled into black markets and mafias. That sounds to me like a bigger problem for our security. Somehow that seems like a more important issue for the Federal Government to deal with. You know, provide for the common defense and all. My mistake, its just a power grab by big corporations.

    1. Re:Piracy at sea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because funds from bootlegged DVDs don't go to black markets and mafias.

    2. Re:Piracy at sea by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      There's already a known solution for the Somalia piracy problem. Europe needs to control its mafias, so that they stop dumping toxic waste in Somali waters. Europe also needs to reign in its fisheries, which are illegally trawling off of Somalia. Between these, there's no fish left for Somali fishermen. The vast majority of pirates are hungry fishermen.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
  25. Should start with huge commercial organizations by RichMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    CRIA is a huge violator. I suspect the RIAA is a similar violator. These organizations should be made to pay in full.

    http://www.zeropaid.com/news/87347/can-cria-recover-from-the-largest-copyright-infringment-case-in-canadian-history/

    ---
    Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) was sued for $6 billion (not $60 billion as initially reported) for commercial copyright infringement. The case was only filed and already, it is seemingly beyond the point of damage control for CRIA. The question is, can CRIA recover from what may be the biggest blunder in its history?
    --

    1. Re:Should start with huge commercial organizations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up, this is huge.

  26. No need to wait, read story summary! by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I can't wait to hear all of the partisans who rightfully complained about Dick Cheney's energy task force come out of the woodwork to tell us why this is "different".

    Your wish, it is granted:

    Judging by the press accounts, the sort of intellectual property criminals they are interested in are large-scale DVD bootleggers, not individual downloaders.

    Well thanks for clearing that up! This copyright summit would never harm you, citizen! It's utterly different than any that have come before because it only goes after lrge scale infringers, or so the spin goes! Ignore the fact Hollywood is attending and we know what they always want.

    I'll bet if this were Bush's (or any Republican for that matter) copyright summit, we wouldn't see such a helpful sentence explaining how what these guys are doing is all for the good.

    Sorry, but I didn't like large scale expansion of copyright under any administration no matter how much you try to handwave and explain Democrats are all OK in this regard.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:No need to wait, read story summary! by daveime · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the 21st century.

      Who actually buys bootleg DVDs anymore ? Despite the fact they cost a few cents more than the recordable media they were burned onto, they are invariably movie mini-cam rips with people's heads in the forground and half the audio in English, half in German, and with the last 10 minutes missing.

      They only cited this example because it has the emotive word "bootleg" in it, a throwback to the prohibition language of the 20's and 30's. Just like "piracy" which evokes the same kind of illicit, hidden, sneaky connotation to the whole business.

      Whether information *wants* to be free or not, it is out there and the digital unflawed copies are multiplying by the second. No need to be involved with back-alleys or men in brown trenchcoats with suitcases anymore.

    2. Re:No need to wait, read story summary! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but after the press is kicked out, I'm honestly incapable of forcing myself to believe that the subject of individual downloaders was never discussed.

  27. Vote Cthulhu! by babblefrog · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why settle for the lesser of two evils?

  28. Except most piracy is by their contractors by tlambert · · Score: 1

    Except most piracy is by their own manufacturing contractors in other countries running a so-called "Third Shift", also known as a "Midnight Shift" or a "Ghost Shift" on the same production lines with the same equipment and workers who were used for the legitimate production of authorized copies. If they kept their manufacturing in their own political jurisdiction, they could expect some enforcement by the politicians they've bought; they don't, and so they have to go to the politicians they own and plead with them to talk to the politicians they don't own.

    "He that lieth down with Dogs, shall rise up with Fleas."
                                            - Benjamin Franklin

    -- Terry

  29. Thank God! by Croakus · · Score: 1

    I'm glad to see that the Obama administration cares about protecting the rights of creators and I hope something positive can come out of this meeting that benefits BOTH sides of the equation. I'm sick and damn tired of hearing stories of insane RIAA lawsuits against teenage girls, but I'm even more tired of watching people take and enjoy the fruits of an artists labor without due respect and compensation.

  30. Rightful ownership of information by spikenerd · · Score: 1

    Copyright doesn't just grant ownership to the creator. It grants him the right to give copies to other people and still tell them what they're allowed to do with them. That is not some inherent right. It requires lots of laws and government infrastructure to make it work. Consequently, even the content creator should not really "own" what he creates. All of us that help pay for the infrastructure to make that work with our taxes deserve a piece of that ownership. That's what the public domain is all about. When they extended Copyright, they robbed many years worth of valuable content from the public that rightly owns it. As one who was blatantly robbed of my rightful property by my government, am I supposed to now be happy about them cracking down on people that copy information? I think not.

  31. It doesn't help when we refer to it as piracy by DJRumpy · · Score: 0, Troll

    Why do we on ./ continue to perpetrate the lie? This is not piracy. It is copyright infringement.

    1. Re:It doesn't help when we refer to it as piracy by cpghost · · Score: 1

      You're right, of course. But so what? Piracy is WAY cooler than boring copyright infrin...euhh...what? Anyone who didn't want to be a cool pirate as a kid? Any girl who hasn't dreamed of a romance with a handsome fearless pirate?

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    2. Re:It doesn't help when we refer to it as piracy by east+coast · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Because a dozen people post exactly what you posted any time they call it piracy and posts and hits are the selling points that Slashdot uses to sell ads. All you're doing is to help keep the practice going.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  32. Find balance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So has the rampant file sharing that is (and has been) going on actually resulted in any significant loss of work for "real people working in these industries"?

    From the box office numbers I have been reading about, the industry seems to be thriving along just fine, despite all this "piracy."

  33. intellectual property.. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Id gladly trade that 'resource' for a plant that made cars, or food... IP wont mean much when we cant actually make anything.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  34. !Piracy by AP31R0N · · Score: 5, Informative

    For the 88th Time:

    Piracy is ship to ship armed robbery. Calling copyright infringement piracy makes light of murderous thugs, and makes infringement sound worse than it is. It doesn't even work as a metaphor. When we use their misnomer, they win. Then one of two things will happen. Either infringers will be demonized people sharing 1s and 0s or the word piracy will lose its gravity.

    Cue the "langwijiz morf, get/it" crowd.

    And yeah, get off my lawn, or whatever other dismissiveness you want to conjure. Disagree all you want, but try to do it without dismissing me as pedantic or a grammar nazi. Try some substance.

    Language matters; word choice matters. All actions start as thoughts, thoughts happen in words. By calling a government a regime, we can make overthrowing it more palatable. By calling a person a kike, nigger, rag head, witch etc, we can make them not human, so killing them won't be murder. Hacker was a positive term. The "man" (media, law, etc) has corrupted the word hacker to refer to criminals. It's like calling Nazis German over and over until the word German means Nazi. When we blur the distinction between words we lose expressiveness and have to invent awkward ways to regain specificity that we threw away out of laziness and ignorance. Yeah languages change over time, but there is evolution and there is devolution and corruption. Change is not inherently good.

    And stand up for yourselves.

    Last time you guys modded this "redundant", let's see if you do better this time!

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    1. Re:!Piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yeah! I hate sloppy use of our language, trying to mainstream terms that have only been in use since 1703!

      When we say pirates, we mean the REAL 1600s definition!

      [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement
      Read it. Get over yourself.

    2. Re:!Piracy by yuhong · · Score: 1

      Yea, it is on FSF's list of words to avoid or use with care.

    3. Re:!Piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, in this case it's genuinely confusing. I started reading the summary fully expecting to see something about dealing with the situation in Somalia. Real piracy is still a real issue, let's try to keep the two vastly different concepts separate.

    4. Re:!Piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Language is dynamic. The proper word is the word that everybody uses.

      Your little rant isn't going to have any effect, so instead, just deal with it and move on.

      Halloween pirate costumes also make light of murderous thugs.

    5. Re:!Piracy by VShael · · Score: 1

      The way things are going, the punishment for actual piracy and stealing a boat-load of DVD's and selling them on the blackmarket, will be less than the average Torrent downloader gets.

    6. Re:!Piracy by cbope · · Score: 1

      +10

    7. Re:!Piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the 89th time, piracy has been used to refer to copyright infringment since 1603.

    8. Re:!Piracy by pckl300 · · Score: 1

      When did Piracy become a bad term around here? I know it's thrown around recklessly by the accusers, but I thought that fellow internet pirates were proud to be called as such. Whadda ya say, lads?

      --
      In the beginning, there was null.
    9. Re:!Piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How in the world does the n-word make it into just about every topic on this website?

  35. Republican? by mollog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Republican party in the north, the party of Lincoln, was Fiscally Conservative, pro-business, Politically Moderate, and Socially Moderate. They were certainly liberal in the sense that they liberated the black slaves.

    When Texas Democratic President Lyndon Johnson signed the voting rights act in 1964, he remarked that it was going to deliver the deep South to the Republican Party for a generation. He underestimated.

    The deep South segregationists that now control the Republican Party are only Socially Conservative. They are Politically Liberal (intruding into people's personal decisions) and Fiscally Spendthrifts or corrupt. Newt Gingrich and his fellow 'Movement Republicans' are not actually conservative at all. And I would hold that they are hardly Republican.

    Ron Paul is truly Politically Conservative, Fiscally Conservative and Socially Conservative. There are few others like him, but they exist. Joel Hefley of Colorado, perhaps Chuck Hegel of Nebraska. Governor 'Butch' Otter of Idaho. The vast majority of the Republican party are simply pro-business (or more accurately, pro-corporation) proto-fascists. Opportunists. Thieves. Corrupt.

    The Democratic Party has evolved into an aimless, populist mob. They currently have no guiding principles. They seem to exist only in reaction to big business and the corrupting influence of money.

    Getting back to the article; it seems that piracy has a lot to do with intellectual property similar to software programs. If a person creates a work, it would be better if that person could maintain control over its provenance. This encourages continued production of similar work. China, India and other Wild West type newly minted capitalistic systems care little for hypothetical rights such as intellectual property. With good reason, it's unenforceable.

    --
    Best regards.
    1. Re:Republican? by pwizard2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Republican party in the north, the party of Lincoln, was Fiscally Conservative, pro-business, Politically Moderate, and Socially Moderate. They were certainly liberal in the sense that they liberated the black slaves.

      Lincoln was no saint and greatly exceeded his power. The war was not actually a true civil war, since the south had no intention of taking over Washington DC and gaining control of the country. (just like Washington had no intention of taking over England during the American revolution) We only wanted our independence from the tariffs that we had to unfairly pay the north for manufactured goods. Of course the revisionists would say that the war was over slavery and that the southerners were nothing but a bunch of bigoted slaveowners, but that's the way it often goes when the winners of a war get to write the history to cover up their own transgressions. Lincoln was actually more for big government, so he would probably be more in line with the democrats today.

      When Texas Democratic President Lyndon Johnson signed the voting rights act in 1964, he remarked that it was going to deliver the deep South to the Republican Party for a generation. He underestimated.

      Never mind the fact that the Democrats have historically opposed civil rights legislation up to that point. (the south has historically been predominately democratic or "dixiecratic" for a very long time) The republicans were the ones who pushed it through congress. Johnson probably only signed it because the democratic party wanted the black vote and the actions of the president are much more visible than those of congress. It's too bad that more people don't know how much they've been scammed by these politicians.

      The vast majority of the Republican party are simply pro-business (or more accurately, pro-corporation) proto-fascists. Opportunists. Thieves. Corrupt.

      And the Democrats aren't? You have more back-room dealing and arm twisting than ever before these days. (for instance, look at what happened to Lieberman recently and how the Louisiana governor got bought off recently)

      --
      "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
    2. Re:Republican? by VShael · · Score: 2, Informative

      Now hang on. I know you have dozens on replies to this already, but... how come you can safely divide up the Republican party into different factions, and then give examples you like and presumably approve of (eg. Ron Paul) but the Democrats can get lumped together into one bucket of crap?

      The Democratic Party is even more divided than the Republican. They range from the practically Republican Joe Lieberman, the very left-wing Dennis Kucinich, and everyone in between.

      It's one of many reasons the Dems can't get stuff done. They aren't the party of the rubber-stamp follow-the-party-line.

    3. Re:Republican? by mollog · · Score: 1, Informative

      There are certainly flavors of Democrats. My favorite is the traditional farmer-laborer Democrats of the West. A progressive strain of them is found in Minnesota. I love them.

      The deep South were Democrats because Lincoln was Republican. That's it. Look up Dixiecrat in Wikipedia. It was only when the Democrat President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights act that they started bolting for the Republican Party and changed the course of American politics. Look up Southern Strategy in Wikipedia.

      The South has long been a political force that is basically outside the typical American mainstream of politics. They are cohesive, but they aren't so much a politically organized group as they are a sociologically organized force. Look up Authoritarianism and Right-wing Authoritarianism in Wikipedia. Proto-fascist.

      --
      Best regards.
  36. Planning the invasion of Canada by martijnd · · Score: 1

    As Michael Geist points out , these executives owe Canadian musicians 6 billion CA$.....

    http://www.thestar.com/business/article/735096--geist-record-industry-faces-liability-over-infringement

    No wonder that they need a little strategic "planning" at the white house.

  37. Imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We get two parties to choose from.

    Imagine. There are two child care places in your city. One is found to employ pedophiles. Everyone moves their kids to the OTHER child care. It's then found that someone at this child care likes to roast babies and eat them. Everyone moves the kids back to the FIRST child care. Now, someone is found to have fed some babies to their vicious dog. Everyone moves the kids over to the second child care. A kid or two are used in a ritual satanic sacrifice, so people move AGAIN.

    And, all the while, the pedos are abusing the kids .....

    There's our two party system.

  38. Santa will grant (some of) your wishes! by Mathinker · · Score: 1

    If anything, the RIAA members should have all their copyrights revoked for abuse, and rights should be restored to the people who created the original works, bypassing the old "work for hire" provisions that Hollywood snuck in.

    Musical recordings, at least up to now, haven't been accepted as belonging to the enumerated list of types of works which are automatically works for hire if produced for compensation. Except for a very short period of time between Congress messing things up (1999) and its later pressing the "reset button" (2000).

    In most cases the artist(s) assign their copyrights to the labels, and this means that soon, starting around 2013, there will be an interesting battle in the Federal courts whether or not the artists can terminate these assignments as stipulated in the 1976 Copyright Act.

    See also http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/11/15/2119230/Copyright-Time-Bomb-Set-To-Go-Off .

    1. Re:Santa will grant (some of) your wishes! by Weezul · · Score: 1

      Awesome! It'd be sweet if all the anti-RIAA pro-piracy rhetoric gives the industry such a bad reputation that they lose this one to the artists. lol

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  39. PRO-IP Act by angelbunny · · Score: 1

    According to wikipedia the history of the law that ties Obama into appointing a copyright czar is:

    "On 2007-12-05 introduced into the House of Representatives by John Conyers. [3]
    On 2008-05-08 the House of Representatives passed the bill 410 to 11. 2008 Presidential candidates Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are among those who voted against the bill.[4][5] The Senate bill was S 3325.[6]
    On 2008-10-13 President George W. Bush signed the bill into law."

    More crap being blamed on Obama yet again on Slashdot? What is with you guys? I'm no Obama fan but I don't blindly point fingers at others either.

  40. And They Wonder Why People are Cynical? by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

    There are any number of more pressing matters currently facing our nation and the Obama administration is wasting their time with Hollywood moguls? This demonstrates yet again that the Obama administration has a rather tenuous grasp of what the American people consider to be important. The economy is in the toilet, we are engaged in two major wars (or as they like to call them in the Obama administration, "overseas contingency operations"), and we are still hemorrhaging jobs. In fact, the number one issue with most Americans right now is JOBS. Just about every American either knows someone who has lost their job, fears losing their own, or in fact has already lost it. This has an effect similar to a giant parachute retarding the acceleration of economic growth necessary for a full recovery.

    The Obama administration, if it cares at all about its own political survival, has got to stop the bleeding on jobs or their goose will be cooked in the 2010 congressional elections and they can kiss a second term goodbye. I suppose it could be argued that Hollywood does produce some jobs and that copyright infringement does have some effect on those jobs, but any number of industries are both bigger and employ more people than the entertainment industry. The only consolation in this whole affair is that the Vice President, Joe Biden, is chairing the summit (which practically ensures that nothing useful is going to come of it).

    1. Re:And They Wonder Why People are Cynical? by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      I agree with everything you said, but the reason Obama is spending (IMO wasting) time on this now is simple: Hollywood pulled out all the stops in supporting his campaign, and people don't do that for free. He owes them. They know it, and he knows it, and this is the kind of payback Hollywood once.

      Once upon a time in the 1970s, it was somewhat common to see stickers in car windows that said "Ass, gas, or grass - nobody rides for free." Politics works the same way.

  41. Grammar Nazi in training. by yamfry · · Score: 1

    According to one attendee's tweet, the press was kicked out of the meeting around 20:45 GMT.

    The press were kicked out?

    1. Re:Grammar Nazi in training. by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      Nope. Press is a mass noun, like the water or the data.

    2. Re:Grammar Nazi in training. by yamfry · · Score: 1

      Balls. Back to grammar academy :(

  42. Why does this shock people? by Eskarel · · Score: 1

    Whether you believe in IP or not, it's pretty much the only thing the US still makes that anyone actually wants to buy.

    No one wants what few physical goods the US still produces, there's pretty much zero resources export. The US economy is based almost entirely on ideas(IP) and military hardware. Any president, regardless of their political ideology or personal philosophy is going to work very hard to protect that.

  43. The particular lawyers by symbolset · · Score: 1

    In this case the particular lawyers are the Justice Department. Oh my, isn't that convenient?

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  44. We are right to be concerned. by symbolset · · Score: 1

    He's stuffed the Justice department with RIAA lawyers. I'm not going to agree with him on intellectual property, though I don't dislike his policies generally. I guess you can't have everything. By the time he's out of office this problem seems likely to go away no matter what he does - technology doesn't stop just because media moguls want it to.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:We are right to be concerned. by angelbunny · · Score: 1

      What does this have to do with with my comment? /offtopic

  45. Piracy summit? by kimvette · · Score: 1

    Obama is finally paying attention to piracy? Just a few months ago he didn't care a whit about it. See:

    http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1637109/obamas_somali_pirate_hostage_crisis.html

    Oh, you mean "piracy"[sic] not piracy. Sorry, my bad. Now I understand why Obama is so concerned; guns and gonads are not involved in helping save lives where "piracy"[sic] is concerned.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  46. And in this corner, weighing in /w only 5 members by freescv · · Score: 1

    Well we'll have OUR OWN MEETINGS, /w black jack, and hookers!

    Seriously tho, "Who is representing the consumer's interests?" is the exact reason I logged in and am gonna get 4 hours of glorious sleep tonight. :D

    I love when I can't HELP logging in b/c of great posts like this. Ya, they cheat to steal votes, they buy whomever wins who didn't cheat. They exclusively listen to lobbyists and corps over their own people.

    I believe it's fair these guys get THEIR shot. Their voices heard. It's the exclusiveness that bothers me.


    ...it bothered me enough to shell out 15 bucks in tribute to Linux and Open Source code:

    http://www.opensourceg.com/

    Just a garbageman who's got a dream. That one day all men's voices will be heard equally. That we will have a vote on EVERY decision THEY get a vote on as 7 billion humans on earth, without color of skin, without nationality, without rich stealing 99% of the vote for the win, every time.

    I'm advocating for daily voting, transparency in government, and talk about what people'd vote for WHEN we get a vote.

    Voting every 5 years? People still DO THAT? WHY? We both know your vote will be bought 3 days after elections. That's our problem here, it's not Hollywood's fault as another pointed out, it's our govt not being biased for these corps.

    Jobs, how small of them to think of that. They'll STILL have work, people will still visit movie theatres. It's basically a tax for putting your stuff public.

    Anyways, even if it WAS theft (which it's not, it's copying files) I'd LOVE to see 330,000,000+ people's vote (Mexicans should get a vote too damnit! :P)

    Love to see how many wouldn't really CARE that these greedy companies lose money to personal downloads. I bet it's over 50%.

    They can have private meetings that all the cool kids aren't allowed to go to. Those cool kids (and all the people sue'd or angry at the industry for it's criminal practices) will be pushed to the enemy camp of freedom, democracy, and P2P file sharing.

    Site's been up for 2 weeks, it's getting about 50 hits/day, seen it viewed in the following countries so far:
    Canada
    USA
    Japan
    Russia
    France
    United Kingdom
    & China

    Now everyone planet wide is getting squashed atm. I don't claim to have a daily voting machine btw, just pushing for one, would love it in open source, somehow online and locked out from double voting, white hats guarding it, black hats attacking it's enemies world wide, and more powerful with people's stats/voting power then any one government.

    Well I never got the html skills down nor can I code, I just know Firefox was great for browsing.
    Then I found Ubuntu Linux and LOVED IT! (live add/remove programs ROCKS, so does banshee music player)

    ...so the next step of "what's important to me???" seemed to be Open Source Government

    Love some advise, comments sure would make the site better (my own sandbox no one plays in yet. lmao). I'm also not sure of all the awesome aps or plugins osg COULD have (not even "my" site so much as ANY 3rd part that's NOT the US govt running it, you know, people who still have credibility and public trust)

    Soon as someone actually makes it I'll be RIGHT THERE to link to it! :D

    Free SCV

    --
    http://www.opensourceg.com - A Man Can Dream :)
  47. We are right to be concerned ABOUT YOU, symbolset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SymbolNOBODY:

    You said what's quoted below from you, here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476008&cid=30428430

    "It's tolerated (perhaps encouraged) in part because these annoying actors are otherwised engaged in improving Linux. Major Debian and BSD contributors, for example, use slashdot as a workspace for their human-machine interaction side experiments, of which APK is probably one. In addition many of these trolls post links which, if you follow them, will completely hose a Windows machine. This is part of the game. - by symbolset (646467) on Monday December 14, @01:15AM (#30428430) Journal

    I took offense to the BOLDED part... & ALL you EVER seem to have is "ad hominem" based attacks on people, not the points they make. So, my reply in the URL below was simple (and logical):

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476008&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=30428430#30430244

    Additionally, "symbolNOBODY"? Well - the day you can make something like this (& that got you PAID for it, & that has done as well for others online):

    http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=b861a743aa23c4568b7d73e07ef7ecec&showtopic=2662

    That's also gone over 250.000 views worldwide in 1++ yrs.' time online, & across 15 forums where that guide for Windows Security has been made either an:

    1.) "Sticky/Pinned" thread
    2.) An "Essential Guide"
    3.) Rates 5/5 stars (etc.)

    AND, gets "feedback" like this from users that have applied it:

    ----

    http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28430

    PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

    "...recently, months ago when you finally got this guide done, had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids. My client, who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this, has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS! I haven't even had a follow up call which is unusual. Now I don't recommend this for the average joe, but it if can work for a kids PC it can work for anything! Now, i substituted OpenDNS and activated the Adult Content filter with them for this kids computer. I know its not perfect, but will catch over 99.5% of said sites."

    and

    http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=10f9ba9ad5ff990aaae1e7ec91f593a2&t=28430&page=3

    "Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008. Great stuff! My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads. APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier. Sandboxing was great. Getting my host file updated, setting services to system service, rather than system local. (except AVG updater, needed system local)"

    Thronka - forums member @ xtremepccentral.com

    ----

    THEN, when you have done so, on THAT account? THEN, you can talk!

    Also?

    When you have done all of this as I have over time in this Art & S

  48. Re:The particular ad hominem attack by symbolset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SymbolNOBODY:

    You said what's quoted below from you, here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476008&cid=30428430

    "It's tolerated (perhaps encouraged) in part because these annoying actors are otherwised engaged in improving Linux. Major Debian and BSD contributors, for example, use slashdot as a workspace for their human-machine interaction side experiments, of which APK is probably one. In addition many of these trolls post links which, if you follow them, will completely hose a Windows machine. This is part of the game. - by symbolset (646467) on Monday December 14, @01:15AM (#30428430) Journal

    I took offense to the BOLDED part... & ALL you EVER seem to have is "ad hominem" based attacks on people, not the points they make. So, my reply in the URL below was simple (and logical):

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476008&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=30428430#30430244

    Additionally, "symbolNOBODY"? Well - the day you can make something like this (& that got you PAID for it, & that has done as well for others online):

    http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=b861a743aa23c4568b7d73e07ef7ecec&showtopic=2662

    That's also gone over 250.000 views worldwide in 1++ yrs.' time online, & across 15 forums where that guide for Windows Security has been made either an:

    1.) "Sticky/Pinned" thread
    2.) An "Essential Guide"
    3.) Rates 5/5 stars (etc.)

    AND, gets "feedback" like this from users that have applied it:

    ----

    http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28430

    PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

    "...recently, months ago when you finally got this guide done, had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids. My client, who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this, has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS! I haven't even had a follow up call which is unusual. Now I don't recommend this for the average joe, but it if can work for a kids PC it can work for anything! Now, i substituted OpenDNS and activated the Adult Content filter with them for this kids computer. I know its not perfect, but will catch over 99.5% of said sites."

    and

    http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=10f9ba9ad5ff990aaae1e7ec91f593a2&t=28430&page=3

    "Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008. Great stuff! My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads. APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier. Sandboxing was great. Getting my host file updated, setting services to system service, rather than system local. (except AVG updater, needed system local)"

    Thronka - forums member @ xtremepccentral.com

    ----

    THEN, when you have done so, on THAT account? THEN, you can talk!

    Also?

    When you have done all of this as I have over time in this Art & S

  49. How about $5 off coupons for 15 million people? by osopolar · · Score: 1

    How about $5 off coupons for 15 million people, that way people can pay about $5 per movie - about what they are worth.

    --
    Never Compromise
  50. Re:We are right to be concerned ABOUT YOU, symbols by angelbunny · · Score: 1

    I'm sooooo confused. WTF are you talking about?

  51. You must be new here. by symbolset · · Score: 1

    It's hard to get modded off topic in a politics thread. The moderator looking to mod people off topic isn't even going to come in here as he'd have to mod almost the entire thread.

    Your ggparent post stated that the copyright czar position was created by Congress. It was, and the President has the authority to fill it by appointment but Congress can't compel him to do so any more than they could compel him to appoint members of his cabinet. Your comment:

    More crap being blamed on Obama yet again on Slashdot?

    Would be correct - the blame is being fixed on President Obama. Unfortunately for the political message you're trying to convey fixing the blame on the Executive is in this case is appropriate. The buck stops there.

    My comment goes further to point out that quite topical concerns people have about this Summit are well founded in facts, with citation. This is given as in a dialog where people exchange ideas freely, taking turns working their points of question.

    Now, since your post contained the text:

    What does this have to do with with my comment? /offtopic

    I hope I've cleared up both of those issues for you.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  52. Re:We are right to be concerned ABOUT YOU, symbols by symbolset · · Score: 1

    He likes you, but he's got questions about your post. You should ask for clarification.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  53. Re:We are right to be concerned ABOUT YOU, symbols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is obvious from the quote of symbolset's word that symbolset has once again trolled someone and that symbolset said something he can't back up now with anything substantial or provable. Symbolset said that the person he trolled is out to ruin others' windows machines when it looks like he has done anything but that.