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.
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.
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.
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.
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! --
"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.
"are interested in are large-scale DVD bootleggers, not individual downloaders [for now]. "
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
" 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.
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.
where to drop a bomb to rid us of all of the MPAA Assholes in one shot. It gets the RIAA as well. Sweet.
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
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?
--
How can a party that regulates morality possibly advocate personal choice or liberty? Are we speaking the same language here?
Palm trees and 8
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.'
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.
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.
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.
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."