Slashdot Mirror


White House Cracks Down On Piracy & Counterfeiting

GovTechGuy writes "On Tuesday the White House made a show of rolling out an expansive new strategy to combat online piracy and counterfeit goods, to the delight of industry groups. The plan emphasizes targeting foreign websites that host pirated software and movies and increasing the number of investigations and prosecutions by the FBI, FTC, and Justice Department. Here is the complete plan, introduced by the new 'copyright czar,' Victoria Espinel."

24 of 323 comments (clear)

  1. The people lose again by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, once again, the major parties fail to work for the benefit of the people, and focus instead on the interests of large corporations. No surprises there I guess.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:The people lose again by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, because it is so far fetched to wonder why the federal government is working for the exclusive benefit of the same corporations that are waging a campaign to bankrupt college students, instead of working to making college education more affordable.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:The people lose again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Congratulations! You win the first Idiocy Award for conflating physical with intellectual goods as if the distinction hasn't been made millions of times in prior discussions. Bend over and accept your award.

    3. Re:The people lose again by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a crime against the consumer to force them to keep a product they don't like.

      How is it a "crime"? Were you forced into buying the product? Was the product defective? Was the product exactly as it was advertised when sold? I'm sorry, but I see nothing criminal in the fact that a store isn't obligated to accept returns on things that are neither faulty nor were sold under fraudulent terms (and no, the fact that you didn't like it doesn't make the sale fraudulent).

    4. Re:The people lose again by spazdor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      try

      Exactly.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    5. Re:The people lose again by EdIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. They are not virtual goods either. Your close, but missing something. Both terms imply that theft, at some level, in some context can occur. Theft of intellectual property is in impossibility, by the very definitions of the words involved. The cost, or effort, of copying is also irrelevant.

      When you give your money for the shiny piece of plastic, you are also granted license rights, that we The Peeps (aka Government), granted copyright holders to bestow upon others.

      Only one thing happens when you "pirate" or receive a digital copy of a copyrighted work without compensating the copyright holder: Infringement . The definition, "A violation, as of a law, regulation, or agreement; a breach." does not, and never has, implied Theft which has the definition, "(Law) Criminal law the dishonest taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession".

      Now a copyright can be viewed as physical property, but that is the copyright itself. To permanently deprive somebody of their copyright means I somehow transferred those legal entitlements to myself and started receiving money and granting others license to use that work, per my newly and illicitly acquired intellectual property rights.

      All of the analogies to physically stealing anything are complete and utter tripe based on fallacious logic, and deliberate misinterpretation of law. Content companies (derogatorily referred to as Big Media) would love to have the act of Infringement conflated with Theft. It serves their purpose to have the public incorrectly associate the two to accomplish fear mongering.

      Of course the fact, that no college student or citizen has ever been convicted of theft of an MP3 seems to make no difference. Defendants are always sued for damages as it relates to the acts of infringement in a civil court and not a criminal court. No district attorney has ever prosecuted criminal charges against an ordinary citizen for what we consider to be piracy because it is pointless. It does not meet the definition of criminal levels of infringement which traditionally require intent to profit financially or large scale distribution. Those have been amended in recent times, but nonetheless, nobody has ever been prosecuted criminally for it, despite the fact that torrents and file sharing have involved distribution at what some consider to be large scale.

      It makes very little sense, and I don't support piracy. However, I don't support the type of ignorance you were replying to either and it always motivates me to put out yet another post hoping to educate people on what a copyright really is.

    6. Re:The people lose again by Andorin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Face it. Many Slashdotters are against copyright and patents just because they want to freeload.

      Looks like it's categorically impossible to have a rational debate with you about copyright, because anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a pirate.

      --
      That Anonymous Coward guy is pretty annoying. Can we have the government censor him or something?
    7. Re:The people lose again by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What you suggest may have been true 20 years ago. Today, public funds pays for approximately 20%. Profs may be able to make more in the private sector but they would probably be expected to actually show up and work and sometimes work on things that they do not like. There's a reason so many highly qualified people want to become university faculty instead of working in the private sector, it's not such a bad gig.

    8. Re:The people lose again by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everything the government subsidizes to "help the people" distorts markets by raising the price or over production.

      Anytime someone says "Everything the government [does is bad]" you know they're whargarbling ideology and are not dealing with reality.

      That aside, most markets are already distorted for a variety of governmental and non-govermental reasons, long before government subsidies get involved.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    9. Re:The people lose again by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Was there a 3rd party candidate for presidency who was running on a platform which included "Don't do anything to enforce intellectual property rights?" And if so, is the reason they didn't get elected -really- because they weren't with one of the two parties?

      Is it even possible for a candidate, any candidate, to run without a budget of at least a couple hundred million? And if not, is it any surprise that the choices you get can be quickly summarized as corporate whores A through D?

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    10. Re:The people lose again by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What if "the people" do NOT believe that downloading music is "right"... but believe that it's nevertheless a better alternative than what MPAA members are offering them commercially?

    11. Re:The people lose again by paganizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You've obviously been here for a while, and seen this before, but I'll post anyway.

      I don't disagree with you; I don't agree with you either. I'm a quasi-artist. my father is a musician (he helped invent rock-a-billy, sorry), and has recently had a company in Sweden republishing some of his old records without his permission. My daughter is a artist & photographer.

      All of us agree that there needs to be a way to keep others from profiting from our work; the website that hosts something my family did, and didn't ask for permission to use it, should be subject to a civil penalty for doing so that should be tied to the amount of profit they made from it, with a cash penalty for the original unauthorized use, POSSIBLY based on the value of the art, where possible. But it's not criminal, no one was harmed except in their wallet.

      We are vehemently against the criminalization that the government is starting; one of the things we've started doing is offering unlimited use licenses to any family stuff for anyone that is being targeted by a criminal trial, free of charge (it's not happened, and probably never will, but I still think it's a good idea).

      The main issue, however, is fair use. Any copyrighted work should be free to use for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, scholarship, derivative works, or parody. it's long standing U.S. Law, and the current initiative, while they are presenting it as a means of dealing with counterfeit products and sites selling copies of copyrighted works, will have a strong chilling effect on fair use; law enforcement and purported copyright holders WILL attempt to use this to shut down sites hosting blogs, parodies, derivative works, etc.

      In direct answer to your statement, this could mean more of the same content will be produced.. but it's going to have a stifling effect on new artists and those who create new types of art, and have a negative impact on media reviewers, fan sites & parody, to name a few targets.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    12. Re:The people lose again by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not liking the terms under which a product is sold does not entitle you to pirate it.

      You don't need entitlement to download a song any more than you need entitlement to listen to it on the radio. Sending and receiving information is a fundamental right. It's you who needs entitlement to curtail this right in any way, and strong entitlement at that.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    13. Re:The people lose again by citylivin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "All of us agree that there needs to be a way to keep others from profiting from our work"

      For how long, perpetuity? You say that your father invented rock-a-billy. Wikipedia claims that this style of music was invented in the 50s. So we are looking now at 60 years ago. So something your father created and released 60 years ago should still be generating revenue for you and your family? What about when it gets to 100 years, 200? When does it get to become part of our shared cultural heritage, that anyone should be able to enjoy? Never? When you made "enough" money from it?

      I get that you want to make money for work your father did 50 or 60 years ago, but if i build a computer or a house or a deck for someone, i don't then get collect royalties and expect them to support me 60 years later. Or in your example, ask permission to have a dinner party on the deck. You are basically denying people access to a part of the culture, because you want to make more money. I get it, and honestly, if i was in the same position Im not saying I wouldn't do the exact same thing. It does also complicate things that they are charging money for it. Ideally, no one should have to pay for any music. Sometimes for rare things that are simply not available anywhere, you end up paying someone who has access to the content. What I would do if I were you, is release the content in question on your own website as a digital download for a small fee to cover hosting and bandwidth (perhaps 5$ an album). You could very easily destroy any profit that this sweedish company is making overnight.

      Thats a creative solution to your problem, which allows you to make some money and also allows people access to perhaps hard to find recordings. Music is about telling a story. No one has a right to determine who can and cannot listen to stories. The whole of humanities oral traditions are at stake with the locking up and denying of access to culture.

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
  2. Fooled us by hansamurai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, what did we really expect when the Copyright Czar position was created?

    1. Re:Fooled us by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know that bill that would grant the Executive branch the ability to police the internet? You know, the one regarding national security. Ya, that one.

      Now you know what it's really about. Protecting the industry that votes Democrat and squelching free speech that criticizes the party in power.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  3. This is what happens when it all goes oversees by Dynedain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And this is what happens when the US no longer has any manufacturing and produces very little real, tangible, goods or services. Between executives and shareholders wringing every last penny of quarterly profit at the expense of long-term goals, regulations and unions forcing unsustainable operating expenses, and skyrocketing education costs paired with plummeting education quality, long-term viability of the US business sector is caving.

    The only thing the US has left that is of value on the global market is "intellectual property". This means regardless of whether you vote Republican or Democrat, you will get politicians that support crackdowns on piracy and extension of copyright protections.

    --
    I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
  4. Re:So... by Jhon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think it's more likely that the US will try to use US laws on US ISPs to BLOCK foreign/non-US websites -- until those websites conform to US laws.

    I don't think it's going to be much fun.

  5. Sigh... by thestudio_bob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.

    --
    The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
    1. Re:Sigh... by russotto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.

      Lucas Entertainment will be sending you a cease and desist notice momentarily....

      (err, wait, make that Lucasfilm Limited... best not to get those mixed up)

  6. We need a rebellion by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion..." --Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith, 1787. ME 6:372

  7. Re:Dear, Victoria Espinel by Zancarius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have a warning to you. We're committed to putting you out of business. Not you in person - your friends in the music and film industries. They are relying on broken, decaying business models, and no matter how much you try, you can't save them.

    Even if it were feasible to have some sort of economic impact on the media industry, no matter what you do it'll never have any impact. Remember the "Drudge Tax" that the FTC was mulling over (now bear in mind, this was only a report and not something that is going into effect)? "Oh, but that's just Drudge" you say. "He's a right-wing lunatic."

    Think about this carefully: the "Drudge Tax" was an idea concocted to make news aggregators (hi, Slashdot!) pay a small tax for linking to third party stories. Essentially, it would be in place to prop up an industry that is effectively in the process of dying. It sounds a lot like something Rupert Murdoch was proposing, too, doesn't it?

    Remember, too, that every blank CD-ROM you purchase includes a small fee that goes straight into the coffers of the RIAA to help offset the costs of piracy. Sure, it's only a few cents, but during the peak of CD-ROM sales it was a figure undoubtedly rather high. Worst of all: most people have no idea they are paying what is effectively a tax.

    So, no, I don't think that economically hurting the media industry is going to have any effect. Congress will simply levy taxes against the rest of us to keep their buddies afloat. If we truly professed to be a semi-capitalistic society, we would simply let these companies fail when they can no longer afford to keep their doors open. We're not; instead, we sink countless millions of dollars into failing industries simply because they have lobbyists.

    You and I? Well, we're just taxpayers. We have no lobbyists. Plus, even if you could convince the vast majority of consumers to not purchase popular media (hint: won't happen), it'll never work. It'll instead be blamed on piracy, and you might just wind up paying a tax on every hardware component you purchase to build a computer, because--by golly--that device might just be used to pirate goods. In fact, I think there was a proposal of the sorts in the works.

    I hate to sound so cynical. Instead, I'll end this on a positive note by welcoming you to serfdom.

    --
    He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
  8. Not more manufacturing crap by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That is not just wrong, it is the opposite of right. Not only does the US still manufacture goods, it has the #1 output of manufactured goods in the entire world. Yes, that's right, more than China even. That is on track to change, the way things are going China will be #1 by around 2020, but because of their growth, but because the US isn't making things. The US is manufacturing more than it has at nearly any other time (the recession has caused a drop, but pre-recession was highest levels ever).

    You are just choosing to see things selectively. If you don't know what it is that the US makes, well that is your failing, not a failing of the US economy. There are some mundane things, like steel girders or sewer lids. There are some high tech things like computer processors (most of Intel's fabs are in the US) and DSPs. There are some industrial things like locomotives and heavy construction machinery. There are some specialized things like MRI scanners and nuclear reactors. There are some unexpected things like Toyota cars (Toyota has many US factories).

    Doesn't matter, all over the board the US produces a whole lot of stuff. So please, educate yourself before spouting off. This "The US makes nothing but imaginary goods!" thing is tired and incorrect.

  9. What piracy is... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Piracy is IDF paramilitary terrorists raiding aid convoys bringing food and medicine to Gaza. When are the denizens of the Whitehouse going to crack down on that?