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."

68 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 commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>>the same corporations that are waging a campaign to bankrupt college students, instead of working to making college education more affordable.

      College already is damn cheap. At state schools about half the tuition is covered by taxpayers. Plus your professors earn very little salary and would actually be better-off quitting & going to work in industry (about $30,000 per year more). And the room rental works out to just $11-12 per night.

      I think college is actually quite cheap, and I wish we could have a similar privatized model at the K-12 level. (Gov't schools cost ~$10,000 each year - private is only $3500.)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    5. Re:The people lose again by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, consider this: the consumer may just be curious about the music. On the one hand, they can download it, and not have to worry about not liking it -- but that is illegal, and should the corporation that produced the music wish to, they can bring the consumer to court with the blessing of the executive branch. On the other hand, they can purchase it, but if they don't like it they have no guaranteed recourse.

      That sure sounds like a system that is designed to favor the rich and powerful corporations, rather than the consumers.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    6. Re:The people lose again by spazdor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      try

      Exactly.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    7. Re:The people lose again by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because there is no way to try before you buy legally. With a book its close to a non-issue, Barnes and Noble won't kick me out for reading a full book while in their store, why is it so different with music/DVDs? Unless I can listen to the entire album in-store, I don't know what I'm buying. Lets say I buy a physical good, a clock radio for example. However, I don't like the alarm sound of it because I don't think it will get me up, I repackage the product and return it no questions asked mostly.

      If Wal-Mart let me listen to the full album before I bought it, it wouldn't be an issue. If it was legal to listen to the album by downloading it at home before I bought it it would be a non-issue. But if I don't know what I'm getting, and I can't return it, it isn't a product, its a gamble.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    8. Re:The people lose again by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a radio host named Alex Jones who gives his stuff away for free (via internet) or for purchase (physical copy), but he doesn't seem to be going bankrupt. He still rakes-in plenty of cash. There are probably other examples, but Jones is the first one that popped into my head.

      POINT: Just because the net exists doesn't mean the company will disappear. There are enough people who prefer physical product (like me) that they will continue raking-in millions each year. For them to claim they "lose" is ridiculous. There was no cost to them when I downloaded that Britney song, and even if the net didn't exist, I wouldn't buy her crap anyway.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    9. Re:The people lose again by santiagodraco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course the fact that every movie avail on DVD has been out in the theaters already, and reviewed.... and music albums are played on radio stations regularly, and streamed...

      Yeah you are right. Walmart is the problem you buy crappy DVD's and music, not you. They absolutely should take back that opened container that you absolutely did not RIP to your media server at home...

      Please...

    10. Re:The people lose again by bunratty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Downloading is not the same as stealing, but when you make a copy of a book, CD, or DVD instead of paying for it, you are denying revenue to pay for the creation and distribution of the content. If everyone did that, most wouldn't bother with creating and distributing content, because they wouldn't be able to make a living at it.

      Face it. Many Slashdotters are against copyright and patents just because they want to freeload. They don't give a thought to the consequences their actions have.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    11. Re:The people lose again by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why can't record and movie companies follow that example?

      They don't understand that as long as people are having fun the money will roll towards them. What kills me is 10 years ago Paramount was trying to take down screen grabs of Star Trek from fan sites.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    12. Re:The people lose again by kholburn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So if I go to my library and borrow a book for free, or a DVD or a CD I am stealing? Am I denying revenue to pay for creation and distribution of the content?

      I and most people I know have been doing this for a long time with books and guess what - there are still books being written.

    13. Re:The people lose again by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Completely agree. But that cost is recouped many times over, if the product is any good, within the first 5 years or so. Yet, for goods that can be reproduced digitally the cost never goes down after the cost is recouped.

      The RIAA and MPAA are losing business because of their own retarded business practices and refusal to fully embrace the Net as a means of low-cost distribution.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    14. Re:The people lose again by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most people might read the back cover, maybe the first chapter, read a few reviews online, and decide. Especially if they've read other works by that author. But the whole book?

      Yes, most people. See, that is the key. Most people don't have enough free time to sit down and read an entire book. But the thing is, they don't stop you if you read the entire book. Same thing with an album or DVD, few people are going to sit down and watch/listen to the entire thing, or same thing with games, but why stop them? Our entire economy is based on convenience, I have broadband because its more convenient than dial-up, I've got a car because its a whole lot easier to drive 15 miles to work everyday rather than walk those 15 miles, I've got a refrigerator rather than buying food everyday because its easier, etc. I could probably save money if I bought a modem for my laptop and subscribed to a dirt-cheap dial-up service, but it would be a lot less convenient.

      You would gain more sales than "losses" according to the *AA if you could watch an entire movie or listen to an entire album before you purchased it. The problem with 30 second samples is that it doesn't reflect the entire song. The -vast- majority of my iTunes purchases are songs that I've been listening to for a while on YouTube, I don't go out and buy obscure albums without knowing what the songs are. And unless the album is at a steep discount when compared to the songs I like individually, I won't buy an entire album.

      I like certainty in my purchases. Why should I spend the price for a decent meal on an album unless I know for sure I will like it? Does this strategy mean I buy less music? Yes. Does this strategy mean that I spend more on my music? Yes. Using YouTube and other sites with music on it I will generally end up finding more artists that I really like, that I will buy their albums and go to see concerts, buy merchandise, etc.

      I'm going to end up spending less money if I buy a few sub-par albums I don't really like when compared to one album that I really love so I go to the concerts.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    15. 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.

    16. Re:The people lose again by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The federal government doesn't meddle in shoplifting either.

      In truth, no cop wants to bother with this stuff. This is why Hollywood had to buy this sort of law. Cops would rather chase drug kingpins or bank robbers.

      There's simply no glory in shutting down Canal Street.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    17. Re:The people lose again by Strudelkugel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Student loans provided by the Federal Gov. have the same effect as mortgage loans provided by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae- they raise the price of the underlying product. Just like cheap credit inflated the cost of housing, gov. provided loans are inflating the cost of education. In addition, educational institutions like to tempt students with the promise of high paying jobs (just like that house will be worth more in the future!), leading many students into oppressive debt burdens. Unlike many home loans, however, default on a student loan is a lot more problematic.

      If education had less government subsidy, it would probably be cheaper or at least more cost effective. Everything the government subsidizes to "help the people" distorts markets by raising the price or over production. It can also encourage other risky behaviors. This is not to be confused with long lead time gov. led efforts, such as basic research, environmental studies and the like, in which a "market" either would not exist or would be dysfunctional due to lack or participants. Government clearly has important roles. Providing student loans is not one of them.

      --
      Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
    18. 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?
    19. Re:The people lose again by X0563511 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please tell me where I can listen to Juno Reactor's Labyrinth on the radio.

      Or, right. Only popular swill gets played (over and over and over and over) on the radio.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    20. Re:The people lose again by dmbasso · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Face it. Many Slashdotters are against copyright and patents just because they want to freeload. They don't give a thought to the consequences their actions have.

      Probably true. But that doesn't change the fact that the business model used by those interested in stricter rules for copyright and patents is undeniably wrong.

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    21. Re:The people lose again by Bill+Dog · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hell even candy bar makers warranty their products ("if unsatisfied return the unused portion for a refund"). Why can't record and movie companies follow that example?

      Simple: One makes a Baby Ruth and puts it in a plastic wrapper, and the other makes a turd and puts it in a plastic wrapper. Both are bad for you, but that's where the similarity ends.

      --
      Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
    22. 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.

    23. 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!
    24. 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.
    25. Re:The people lose again by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3

      Then you would have no problem with people stealing music CDs in stores and leaving $0.10 at the counter, correct? After all, that's all it costs to produce, am I right? Consumers get to decide the cost for all products, yes?

      The adults are trying to have a rational discussion here. RIAA shills and/or stupid people are simply not invited.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    26. Re:The people lose again by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Informative

      Son,

      When I went to college, rates had gone up and it cost me $1500 a semester for a full load. This was about 20 years ago.
      College rates have gone up insanely fast compared to everything else except medical care.

      I graduated college debt free. without student loans. I didn't have to do any of that crap because college used to be affordable.
      It's not any more.

      I read about students graduating with $50k, $100k, and even $550k in debt and it makes me really sad for the kids today.

      Open your eyes, they are taking you for a ride.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    27. Re:The people lose again by oblivionboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow. You must be insanely naive. Every PhD level candidate (successful or not) has more or less the same story these days -- they work far harder than their counterparts in "private sector". The main reason is competition and the pressure to publish and teach. Its not easy getting your PhD, and its even harder to get tenure and be successful. If anything most of these qualified people are quitting early at the Masters level to find jobs, or after being a PhD level prof for a while, leaving universities to get things that are more lucrative. Science in particular is a great road to poverty when it comes to university research....

    28. 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?

    29. Re:The people lose again by mpe · · Score: 2, Informative

      But if the MPAA is correct, the people aren't apathetic, they are simply doing what they believe is right.

      Consider also that the MPAA has been caught "pirating" both movies and software. There are only interested in protecting their "intellectual property". Quite possibly some of what they claim as "theirs" actually isn't...

    30. 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.
    31. 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.

    32. Re:The people lose again by Anzya · · Score: 3, Informative

      In Sweden schooling is not only free but you also get around $800 each month while you study. Some of it is a special kind of loan but a smaller part you don't need to pay back.
      This is enough that most students don't need to take an extra job on the side.

      USA might be the "land of opportunity" but in Sweden we believe that one of the best ways to give everyone a chance is to make certain they can go to any school they want. If you are smart enough to get in, money shouldn't be an object. We want the best not the richest ;)

      --
      "This message was brought to you by Sarcasm and Troll Feeders United (or STFU, for you un-hip people)."
    33. Re:The people lose again by sconeu · · Score: 2

      Dude. My daughter goes to UCSD. My cost (in-state) for one year? $28K -- counting tuition, room, board, books, and fees.

      That's IN STATE. My younger daughter is considering UW. That would set me back about $38K per year.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    34. 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
    35. Re:The people lose again by paganizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just to clarify, I don't deserve a dime from any work my dad created; I had nothing to do with it.

      I honestly don't have any idea what is fair; on one hand I think the lifetime of the artist sounds good, with maybe the possibility of a one time only extension of...10 years? by the artists heirs.
      On the other hand, I think that might be too long; how about 10 years from creation, with the artist able to renew it for another 10 years at a time during their lifetime, with heirs only getting a cut during the time after the artist dies until the last renewal runs out?

      But this disney crap is ridiculous; what my dad did in the late 50's and 60's I think he should still get any money generated from it, he created it, it's his. If Walt Disney was still alive, I would probably feel the same way about his work.

      My dad decided to make a deal with the Swedish company, and got about 5% of their CD run free to sell on the rare occasions when he still performs publicly; it works for him.

      Which brings up a question; every time copyright comes up, someone always says that musicians should expect to get their income from public performances... what about those who aren't capable of making public performances due to age or disability? What sort of pension should the government give to creators of original work, when their ability to create leaves them (if they are no longer able to profit from their past work, that is).

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
  2. Any plans to crack down on the FED? by AthleteMusicianNerd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The biggest counterfeiter of them all is the Federal Reserve. This is why you don't have frauds enforce fraud laws.

  3. The White House is full of wimps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I agree with General McChrystal on this one.

    1. Re:The White House is full of wimps by Nikola+Tesla+and+You · · Score: 2, Interesting
      So says "Anonymous Coward". McChrystal never said that:

      One anonymous aide said McChrystal seized control of the war "by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House."

      So we have two Anonymous Cowards calling officials at the White House wimps. Coincidence? I think not.

  4. 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 Jeremi · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

      I read somewhere (I can't remember where now) that when the US realizes that a problem is un-solvable, its final response is to appoint a Czar to take the blame for the problem remaining unsolved.

      Works for me!

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    2. 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. Re:Fooled us by Tassach · · Score: 5, Informative

      Protecting the industry that votes Democrat and squelching free speech that criticizes the party in power.

      Protecting the copyright cartels is one of the few things both parties agree on. Don't forget that Sonny Bono, author/sponsor of the copyright for eternity-on-the-installment-plan, was a Republican. Both houses passed this stinking piece of legislative manure by voice vote, which makes it impossible to determine who voted for or against. Republicans controlled both the h

      Take your partisan nitwittery elsewhere, where the audience isn't persuaded by facts. Freep, perhaps.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    4. Re:Fooled us by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, I assume his second remark was in reference to the so-called "fairness doctrine", which is pretty much universally opposed by the GOP......

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  5. It's all going to hell... by rastoboy29 · · Score: 2

    in a handbasket.

  6. 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.....
  7. CounterPiracy? by turtleAJ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Let's keep on expanding the "ease of use" for anonymous p2p networks.

    p2p is the ENTIRE future of our progress as humanity.
    Governments/Corporations (and Government, Inc.orporations) have no idea what will happen when nanoscale-printers arrive, USB Plug&Play Ready.

    Think about pirating processors... monitors... wireless antenna designs... turbochargers... medicines... perfumes... textiles... Rolex watches... solar panels... more nano-printers.

    The future belongs to us.
    Let's work on the p2p networks.

    =)

    1. Re:CounterPiracy? by cesarb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Some people have already been thinking about the legal implications of 3D printers. You might be interested in the following paper:

      "The Intellectual Property Implications of Low-Cost 3D Printing"

  8. Product pricing by future+assassin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People rather pirate your products because the new mediums changed the value of your product and no one wants to pay $20 for a file when it costs $20 for hard good version of your product. Price it accordingly and people will come back.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  9. This result shouldn't be surprising at all... by macraig · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...considering who we have as a Vice President and who his friends are:

    Biden to MPAA: you'll like Obama's pick for copyright czar
    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/biden-to-mpaa-youll-like-obamas-copyright-pick.ars

  10. I don't care enough to read it for myself by sangreal66 · · Score: 4, Informative

    but I did read the analysis of the plan on Ars (link) and their conclusions are far more favorable to consumers and less favorable to industry groups than the Slashdot summary suggests.

  11. 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.

  12. 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)

  13. Enforcement is a detail - we care about the Rules by starseeker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While I think it is unfortunate that they have legitimized the phrase "intellectual property", it's actually a bit of a relief to see them focusing on piracy and counterfeit goods. I never had any expectation that any major official entity subject to political forces would act to weaken copyright or other "intellectual property" rules, since most commercial content creators want the maximum possible revenue from their work (regardless of broader social consequences to society and creativity). The general mindset is that creativity is fueled by the profit motive, so the more profit the more progress we will see in the arts and sciences. And while this is demonstrably NOT universally true (see open source, as just one example of many) it IS true that vast revenues are generated by copyright laws supporting commercial endeavors and the resources contributed by people so benefiting are of much more use to political campaigns than those who are creating for motivations OTHER than money.

    Given that reality, Creative Commons and Open Source style licensing are probably the only practical means of preserving any of the benefits of what used to be the public domain going forward. With the courts suggesting that Congress can yank things OUT of the public domain even after they are placed there, it becomes clear that the best way forward is the "opt-in" community approach. This means, of course, that the body of work available for creative purposes outside of a commercial framework will be drastically reduced. However, the current social and legislative trends suggest that it's all we can hope for. Given that reality, those who prefer this environment can work to improve the tools and content so released in order to build up our own "subculture" over time. If it appeals to enough people, it may eventually function more or less independently of the commercial world without needing commercial content to fall into the public domain (indeed, in some sense this has been the practical situation for virtually the entire lifespan of everyone on this site anyway - how many of us remember any work released commercially in our lifetime that is now public domain?)

    However, even this proposed subculture can exist only if it is not thwarted by legislative efforts. So long as works CAN be used without commercial payment, free and open source culture can survive as long as there are people willing to make it survive. My greatest concern is that Big Content will try to push for laws making ANY content available without charge subject to "unfair competition" rules - i.e. make it impossible for anyone to do ANYTHING with ANY content, regardless of license, without some form of concrete financial or goods based payment changing hands between creator and user. This might be phrased as the "Fair Compensation Act" intended to "ensure that content creators are compensated for their efforts" and "able to make a living". Free ANYTHING may be branded as "socialist", "communist", "anti-business" and "un-American". I have heard this feeling expressed - that nothing should be free; every product of any kind should be bought and sold in the open market to ensure fair compensation from users to creators. The existence of ANY free content is unfair competition and a dis-incentive to today's creative minds. Open source software prompts this opinion occasionally - for example, the "market destroying effects" of things like free compilers has ruined the livelihoods of people who might have made commercial tools. If that attitude ever makes it into the letter of the law, we are in Big Trouble - THAT is what we really need to watch for.

    --
    "I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
  14. 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

  15. 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
  16. Am I missing something? by Andorin · · Score: 4, Informative
    I'm not going to read the full report myself, but earlier today I did read Ars Technica's piece on this subject. The impression I get from that article is that the federal government is going to largely stay out of the battle between rights holders and file sharers:

    The Administration believes that it is essential for the private sector, including content owners, Internet service providers, advertising brokers, payment processors and search engines, to work collaboratively, consistent with the antitrust laws, to address activity that has a negative economic impact and undermines US businesses, and to seek practical and efficient solutions to address infringement.

    According to Ars, reaction to the report has been positive, even from Public Knowledge. You know, one a-them digital hippy organizations that campaign for peoples' rights. There won't be any gov't-sanctioned three-strikes or Internet filtering, and they're going to get the Department of Commerce to put together an ultimate report on financial harm from piracy (good luck with that, but A for effort since they mentioned that the media industries are basically making shit up). It really doesn't sound all that bad, and it could have been much worse.

    And then we have this Slashdot summary, making it out to be all doom and gloom, as though the feds weren't even going to try to hide that they're in bed with Big Content. As the subject line says, am I missing something here?

    --
    That Anonymous Coward guy is pretty annoying. Can we have the government censor him or something?
  17. Buy the textbook or fail the class. by earls · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Were you forced into buying the product?" Yes, in order to succeed in the class, I was required to buy the selected textbook. And no, not last year's used edition, the brand new edition with at a premium. That's as closed to "forced to buy the product" as I can think of short of a gun barrel in my mouth.

  18. Enforcement isn't all bad... "sheesh"... by steppin_razor_LA · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Take this story in the context of the Slashdot story earlier today. There are an increasing number of web sites operating outside of the US that are illegally selling products that they don't own. If there is one thing that we should ALL be able to agree upon is that organized crime for profit is not defensible.

    The companies selling downloads of movies/etc are directly stealing money from US companies as well as the artistic community that creates them. Say what you will about the MPAA/etc, but at least they are contributing something (i.e. they are actually creating and distributing the movies). Companies that just steal their content and resell it to people are just plain stealing.

    Going after organized villainy is a GOOD use of taxpayer resources. We should be supporting these sorts of efforts and contrasting them with the the music industry's war on consumers.

    --
    Evolution: love it or leave it
  19. 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.

  20. I always thought... by hawkingradiation · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ....that the reason America made (past tense) great movies was because of it's culture. America had true heros and the free and competitive nature of American life, both at home and abroad, was the basis for it's revenue and productive success. There was such a thing as an American hero, and Americans enriched the lives of those outside of its boundaries. America helped rebuild Europe and Japan, and was a key figure in preventing the spread of communism, or otherwise promoting the free market system. Spy stories, WWII stories, stories about the future and technology are some of my favourites. However, nowadays, America produces what besides the film industry/ recording industry? Sure they design iPods, but if there is nobody getting wages paid for them in America, all of the dollars are eventually going overseas. So now, what does it do? America needs vast reform, both in energy (re: wasted resources allocation to fund big multinationals), and in industry too. So instead of producing a movie about the positive and interesting work America has done, The Hurt Locker (which maybe accurately represents modern American life) won some awards which was good for the American side of things, while completely leaving out how others felt (Avatar), which showed an alternative side as to how minerals (re oil) were being used in a conflict against indigenous people's.) Perhaps the US should stick to writing films about well...producing movies and the copyright struggle in America. It would be true, and that is what I feel lacks from most of the movies today: they are based on odd tales. I am sure if they presented a balanced view, in a movie about America (which was successful in the past), even I might start going to the theatres again, and people might start to begin to see what is wrong with America today.

    --
    Society use your Sciences
  21. Don't be too Optimistic by Zancarius · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm of the mindset that the media industry at large is hurting not so much because of piracy but because of quality and the inability to adapt. Me? I used to by CDs whenever I'd hunt for music. Now, I just purchase it from Amazon if it's available; if not, I do without. (Before anyone whines about lossy codecs, I might remind you that this is simply an anecdote; I honestly can't tell the difference between FLAC and MP3 for the majority of what I own except in very rare circumstances. If you can tell the difference, by all means purchase something you can encode in the format you desire.) I don't watch a lot of movies anymore, and the most recent thing I watched was an old series I enjoyed that Hulu happened to have.

    So, it's great that they have the average consumer in mind.

    But, I feel Ars missed something of value in this statement by Espinel (a copyright Czar? seriously? we have an entire legal framework put in place to enforce copyright, and we now need a copyright Czar to watch over all of this?):

    "The Administration believes that it is essential for the private sector, including content owners, Internet service providers, advertising brokers, payment processors and search engines, to work collaboratively, consistent with the antitrust laws, to address activity that has a negative economic impact and undermines US businesses, and to seek practical and efficient solutions to address infringement." (Emphasis added.)

    (Original emphasis is not mine.)

    Read that quote. Got it?

    Now, I want you to read it again--carefully this time. Specifically, minus the distracting bits:

    "The Administration believes that it is essential for ... Internet service providers, ... and search engines, to work collaboratively, consistent with the antitrust laws, to address activity that has a negative economic impact and undermines US businesses, and to seek practical and efficient solutions to address infringement."

    Emphasis mine.

    I don't know about you, but that sounds a lot like a subtle (or maybe not to subtle) hint to industry that it needs to start cracking down on illicit behavior. Specifically, I'm talking about deep packet inspection. More importantly, her words imply to me that even Google would need to filter its results for potentially illegal download links.

    But wait, there's more!

    The plan says the government will soon begin trading samples of "circumvention devices" with the content industry "to assist in determining whether such devices violate an import prohibition." Obviously MPAA and RIAA don't like modchips that allow users to end run DRM restrictions. Groups like Public Knowledge, on the other hand, point out that educators can't exercise fair use rights if they can't access technologies to help them extract video content from DVDs.

    Judging by the reaction of Public Knowledge, I suspect that all such "circumvention devices" are indeed software applications that might help pull content off otherwise DRM-protected discs. Really, this statement better reads as "We're going to let the RIAA and MPAA look at all of this stuff and tell us whether it violates the DMCA. If it does, then we'll punish the authors."

    To me, though, the most comical bit was this:

    The report also promises more vigilance against "foreign-based and foreign-controlled websites and web services" that "infringe American intellectual property rights," but acknowledges that there isn't much the US can do about them.

    Oh really? We have all these fanciful ideas and if any one of those evil pirates overseas is in an area where we can't enforce our IP laws, we're screwed!

    So tell me, aside from the little blurb about online pharmacies (which I do think ought to be shut down, but that's another rant entirely mainly because I suspect they pay for a vast majority of spam delivery), what part of this sounds as if it's not simply a thinly veiled attempt at selling ISP-level packet filtering?

    --
    He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
  22. hope & change by p51d007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I tried to warn you liberal clowns that Hussein Obama was not the "white knight" you idiots thought he was. He is about CONTROL. Control over every aspect of you life. What you can eat, where you can work, go to school, what you can read, watch, hear and download. The government will not be happy until we have our "new world order", but, for that to happen, they have to completely destroy the U.S. economy, the constitution, and demoralize the people. Haven't you idiots ever heard of a dictator that didn't promise the world, then after he is in complete power, turn on the very people who put him there?

  23. Re:So... by countertrolling · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just redirect everything to China, and let them do the filtering... One more thing we can outsource..

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  24. 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?

  25. BP and piracy, more related then one might think by fluffernutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One only needs to point to the BP disaster for a demonstration of the attitude of companies these days. If you can do it and not get arrested then it is right. The only difference between the oil industry and pirates is that the oil industry has the resources to bend the law to be favorable to them. I think it has become indisputable that 'legitimate corporations' will do anything they can to make a lot of bucks.

    And so, I'm sorry but until I see a difference of attitude in private enterprise, until they stand up to the qualities that they profess law or not, I will continue to applaud those 'pirates' who use their resourcefulness to provide a product in a better way and profit from it. For they will never hurt me as much as BP has. They will never kill as many livelihoods as BP has. Add to that the whole wall-street fiasco.

    I'm tired of hearing about the law, because corporate law has become a washed out, bought out joke that only helps profits of the powerful.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  26. Not surprised. by dwiget001 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It is more and more apparent, that President Obama and his Administration, with his "Hope and Change" machinations are really "More of the Same, and Much Much Worse!" (TM)

    With a little bit more of an expanded view, however, it is really Democrats and Republicans that are "More of the Same, and Much Much Worse!"

    Both of the two major parties need a severe wake-up call, namely, less and less of them should be voted into office to the point where it starts messing with their power base, campaign financing and the like. That's really the only thing that will get their attention and start governing "...for the people..." and not "... for the multi-national corporations that give me nice fat campaign donation checks".