Slashdot Mirror


US Targeting China In New Anti-Piracy Drive

oxide7 writes "The United States will make China 'a significant focus' of its beefed-up efforts to fight global piracy and counterfeiting of US goods ranging from CDs to manufactured products, a US official said on Wednesday. The International Intellectual Property Alliance, which represents US copyright industry groups, has estimated lost sales in China at more than $3.5 billion in 2009 due to piracy of US music, movies and software."

99 comments

  1. Give it a rest by gizmod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ah give it a rest allready. Sheesh, when will the US learn that not everyone dances to their tune.

    1. Re:Give it a rest by tnok85 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think most people agree that the US does not produce the best dance music anymore, so I sort of think you're beating a dead horse.

    2. Re:Give it a rest by MEC2 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think that's the problem, everyone is dancing to their tune - the tune they copied/pilfered or otherwise didn't pay for... When China steals it gains unfair advantage in a market. Businesses that have to comply with legal software licensing have costs the Chinese don't. So next time we all bemoan jobs going to China instead of where we all live, remember that China's ability to steal software to reduce their price of production is an unfair advantage that leads to pricing legitimately run business out of the market.

    3. Re:Give it a rest by johnhp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The copyright laws in the US aren't "the tune" of the people. They're just another tool for the rich to extract profit from resources. Just like they drill exploratory oil wells in the search for oil, these attempts to enforce copyright in China are an attempt expand an old game to a new area.

      The level of copyright enforcement in China is probably directly related to how much the industry is willing to pay the enforcers. Share enough of the profits, and I bet China would be happy to send pirates away to a gulag.

      In the long run though, copyright is over. A few major industries will cease to exist in their current form during the next century. All digital content will be considered basically free in a sort of universal public library. What money there is to make will be made by showing movies in theaters, performing live music, and selling physical books to fans of the digital version. I think we'll see a real renaissance once the chains of industry are removed.

      China doesn't respect copyright even to the extent of westerners. Unfortunately for the US, that means they could be first to prosper from this revolution. It may be that in 50 years, Chinese villagers will educate themselves with the best books and movies for free, while we in the US are enslaved under the RIAA's latest hellish plot.

    4. Re:Give it a rest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that's the problem, everyone is dancing to their tune - the tune they copied/pilfered or otherwise didn't pay for... When China steals it gains unfair advantage in a market. Businesses that have to comply with legal software licensing have costs the Chinese don't. So next time we all bemoan jobs going to China instead of where we all live, remember that China's ability to steal software to reduce their price of production is an unfair advantage that leads to pricing legitimately run business out of the market.

      Uh-oh, you used the "S" word.

    5. Re:Give it a rest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You got it backwards. The US is imposing unfair disadvantages on their own industry by forcing them to pay for information that would naturally be free. The next time someone bemoans jobs going to China they should complain to the government about stupid copyright laws harming the US industry.

    6. Re:Give it a rest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Anyone who expects artists to work without compensation would be a hypocrite if they didn't similarly offer their labor pro bono. The ideal solution for this problem is not unfettered piracy. But I definitely don't think the RIAA's death grip (and yes, it is a death grip; we can confidently conclude rigor mortis has set it) on standing copyrights is the best solution for artists, either. In an ideal world, people would purchase media which they value most and pirate the rest. Artists still make money; artists get maximum exposure; more exposure to works of art enriches the culture. On a side note, I also maintain that if ebooks catch on, hardbacks and paperbacks will go the way of the do-do bird. Not because there won't be demand for them, but because the profit margins of ebook publishing are infinitely more appealing (it's like Coke in glass bottles). The Thomas Pynchon's of the world will be reimbursed at rates comparable to those of penny dreadful storytellers.

    7. Re:Give it a rest by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      The US is imposing unfair disadvantages on their own industry by forcing them to pay for information that would naturally be free.

      On the other hand, the notion of "piracy is OK because it's so common in China that it's not regarded as a crime" becomes a bit messy when sites such as dvdorderonline (note their deliberate misspelling in the URL) are selling rip-off copyright works internationally at prices not much lower than authentic copies.

    8. Re:Give it a rest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the notion of "piracy is OK because it's so common in China that it's not regarded as a crime"

      Who said anything about piracy being ok because it's common in China?
      Piracy is a crime, assaulting ships and possibly killing their crew is violent and has to be stopped.
      In case you were talking about copying information: Nobody is ever harmed by that. The whole concept of being an owner of an infinitely available item is absurd to begin with. Ownership only makes sense for items with finite availability. That's why "piracy" (assuming you were talking about copying information and not about real piracy) is ok. It has nothing to do with China.

      That's why the US are hurting their own industry. Well, most of their own industry. There are obviously a few parasitic branches that greatly benefit from the copyright and patent law - at the expense of everyone else.

    9. Re:Give it a rest by dylan_- · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think most people agree that the US does not produce the best dance music anymore, so I sort of think you're beating a dead horse.

      Beating a dead horse will only give you a crisp beat for about 10 minutes or so; after that it starts to sound a bit "squishy". No wonder you don't produce the best dance music if you can't sort out your percussion.

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    10. Re:Give it a rest by the_womble · · Score: 1

      Anyone who expects artists to work without compensation

      Firstly, this is much broader than copyright law. Imaginary property also includes trademark law and patents.
      Secondly, being opposed to current copyright law, does not mean being opposed to copyright law altogether. Having a copyright term of life plus seventy adds very little extra incentive compared to, for example, a fifty year fixed period - but hugely shrinks the public domain. A social optimum copyright law (balancing increasing the public domain with incentives) will, fairly obviously, be somewhere in the twenty year range of so (OK it might be 15 or 30, the last study I saw said 17)
      Finally, even those who want copyright abolished altogether, compensation to be paid in a different way. People made a living from writing and composing music long before copyright law existed.

    11. Re:Give it a rest by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The legitimate producers could afford to price match or even undercut the copied works due to economies of scale...

      Faced with 2 identical products for the same price, people will always choose the more reputable source...

      But the fact is, dvdorderonline has a highly profitable business, because of the price fixing cartels in the west they are able to take unrealistically high margins on their products while still undercutting the competition and offering a superior product (no drm, no unskippable junk etc)... If faced with stiff competition, their margins would be razor thin like virtually every other line of business.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    12. Re:Give it a rest by Bert64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Artists are not expected to work for free, but similarly they shouldn't be allowed to continue being paid for work they've done long ago.
      I personally am disgusted to see artists who haven't produced any work in years, still making huge amounts of money...

      Put it this way, if i came to your house and did some plumbing work for you, would you give me a one off payment for the work and consider it settled, or would you continue paying me for the plumbing while i sat around taking drugs and rolling around drunk in a huge mansion you were paying for?

      Noone deserves to just get an easy ride...

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    13. Re:Give it a rest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got it backwards. The US is imposing unfair disadvantages on their own industry by forcing them to pay for information that would naturally be free. The next time someone bemoans jobs going to China they should complain to the government about stupid copyright laws harming the US industry.

      That argument is totally illogical...

    14. Re:Give it a rest by delinear · · Score: 1

      You don't produce dance music by beating something for more than ten minutes. You beat it once, sample it over some disco and repeat it infinitely.

    15. Re:Give it a rest by delinear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Regardless of how they spend the money (disgusting as it may be to many people), the real reason indefinite copyright is bad is because, if that artist can get paid forever for one successful piece of work, it takes away any reason they may have to produce further pieces of work in the future. The whole purpose of copyright is meant to be to ensure artists produce work, so if indefinite copyrights let them stop producing work then QED copyright is broken. If governments weren't so busy courting big media you'd hope someone there would be bright enough to see this.

    16. Re:Give it a rest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems pretty logical to me. Care to explain the discrepancy.

    17. Re:Give it a rest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that a plumber is not a good analogy. To fit the analogy, you would have the expect the plumber to never charge for installing a faucet after he installed the first one. However, he would be required to install faucets for anyone who wanted one and not be able to charge.

      I don't begrudge an artist for making money off of existing works because many people who buy a CD will have heard the music the first time (aside from any hits that are on the radio) when they make their purchase. The real problem is U.S. copyright law that was changed not for the artist, but the copyright holder. Because Micky Mouse was about to go public domain, Disney put pressure to change the law.

      Copyright, as it was originally written, was very fair.

    18. Re:Give it a rest by somersault · · Score: 1

      It's not stealing. It's not even breaking copyright if there is no local law against it. If you think that the laws in China provide such an unfair competitive advantage, why not move to China to take advantage of the system?

      I really doubt that free software, music and movies are the reason that production costs in China are lower. That type of thing would give an advantage to certain types of small engineering firms certainly because they'd save tens of thousands of dollar on software (though they'd also be ineligible to get official support for said software), but for most businesses software licensing is a pretty minor expense.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    19. Re:Give it a rest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is imposing unfair disadvantages on their own industry by forcing them to pay for information that would naturally be free.

      So are the Chinese pirates.

      If you are a so-called pirate, you are not allowed to charge people for your illicit warez. If information wants to be free, pirated information ever so much more so. Paying for pirated materials is a crime against nature.

      I say, right on! Go after the people who are making an industry – big bucks – off of piracy. Quit harassing people who simply didn’t want to pay for something they could copy for free. Go after the people who are illegally redistributing pirated material for profit.

    20. Re:Give it a rest by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      The problem is that a plumber is not a good analogy. To fit the analogy, you would have the expect the plumber to never charge for installing a faucet after he installed the first one. However, he would be required to install faucets for anyone who wanted one and not be able to charge.

      Neither analogy is really correct- yours is actually more akin to the one where someone buys one copy and then makes umpteen unauthorized copies (which is the picture the media industries would like to paint this all as; which really isn't the case here...). The original analogy would be closer to what the industry is trying for even if it's not what's currently going on- you keep paying for each usage, ad-infinitum.

      You're not going to get a good analogy here- because there's really nothing analogous to this situation we're discussing (Although the first does get a taste of where they're trying to take things.).

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    21. Re:Give it a rest by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Ah give it a rest allready. Sheesh, when will the US learn that not everyone dances to their tune.

      Understanding the spread of IP law? You fail it!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:Give it a rest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copyright laws protect more that just movies and music. For example American companies spend millions developing a microchip. A Chinese firm simply copies the chip without that expense. Or course they can undercut the price of the American company since they do not have any investment to recover. This results in job losses of blue collar workers, not corporate fatcats.

    23. Re:Give it a rest by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually - I'd be quite happy to see piracy increase by orders of magnitude. I hope it drives a bunch of US companies to bankruptcy.

      Let's think a couple minutes. What exactly has fueled all the exporting of American jobs? Corporate greed. Outsourcing? Corporate greed. Copyright? Corporate greed. Corporations export jobs by the thousands, and tens of thousands - but they still want to be paid - for WHAT?

      Screw 'em. Let them keep exporting jobs. And, they can export all those executive bonuses along with the jobs. Export all the profits that the shareholders are dreaming of. Export it all. I have absolutely no loyalty to any corporation, as they have no loyalty to American workers.

      This has been going on for about 30 years now. I kept expecting things to reach an equilibrium. No equilibrium is visible on any horizon yet.

      I'm waiting for the day that only the wealthier 25% of American can afford to buy cheap Chinese junk at Wal-Mart. RIAA and MPAA execs will be among that wealthier 25% - for awhile. Until the American people revolt, and put all those execs in line for firing squads or guillotines.

      --
      "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
    24. Re:Give it a rest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And me without my mod points today.
      Your argument is ignorant of the fact that most of the money to develop these products is not in the physical reproduction price. What you are saying has no bearing on reality, I'm not sure how you were modded 4: Insightful.

    25. Re:Give it a rest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Imaginary property also includes trademark law and patents.

      I am also against IP. I don't consider trademarks to fall under Imaginary Property. I consider trademarks to fall under fraud prevention. I only support trademarks that achieve this aim.

      I don't care if a manufacturer makes a cheap knockoff (or even an exact duplicate) of a Rolex watch and calls it a Polex watch. I do care if a manufacturer who isn't Rolex makes a watch while claiming to be Rolex.

    26. Re:Give it a rest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "information that would naturally be free" is bullshit. The costs to develop the "information" is quite expensive and needs to be re-cooped by the producers.

    27. Re:Give it a rest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A good analogy would be if you wrote a software program and expected to get paid for it every time it was downloaded or copied.

      no no . .. i mean each time a new user wanted to use your software you get paid a license fee .. . umm . ..

      no no . .. i mean if you wanted to distribute over the web there would be a charge for each download..

      oh and then we could sell cd's of the software and charge the user again ..

      oh wait .. we could then do dvd's of the software and then charge the user again ..

      oh wait we could add something that makes it so if you install the software it is locked to the computer you install it on and thus you need to buy a license for each device you will install on . .

      HOW MANY SOFTWARE ENGINEERS GET ROYALTIES? or could it be that you'all get payed once ..

      how many software engineers make a pretty good living by getting paid once for their work? ..

      If it works for software writers it can work for song writers...

      I know .. mod me a troll . .. .

    28. Re:Give it a rest by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      The legitimate producers could afford to price match or even undercut the copied works due to economies of scale...

      ... if they didn't have to invest in the effort (R&D, movie or music production, etc) to produce something in the first place.

      What we really ought to do is simply say "Sure, copy all you want ... we'll just deduct it from the bill we owe you," and leave the rest to the Hollywood accountants. Debt problem solved in no time!

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    29. Re:Give it a rest by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Noone deserves to just get an easy ride...

      Wait a minute, you just said he didn't!

      Did you perhaps mean "no one"?

    30. Re:Give it a rest by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Anyone who expects artists to work without compensation would be a hypocrite if they didn't similarly offer their labor pro bono.

      Just FYI, you're posting on slashdot here.

      In one word: FOSS. Free, open-source software? Hello? You may not expect people to work for free, but there sure as hell are a lot of people doing it here and making a decent living. Anywhere else, and everybody would eat up your words, but here, nobody's going to take you seriously because that's exactly what they do.

      Realistically, you're correct. You can't expect everybody to work for free. But then again, artists are not entitled to money for producing art either. Without copyright, producing art and expecting the dough to roll in is nothing more than a failed business plan.

      Besides which, society may suffer if nobody produces art, but I'm certain that's never going to happen. Even if nobody makes music professionally anymore, there'll always be amateurs to take over. And maybe people might even be motivated enough to learn to play an instrument and maybe make their own...

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    31. Re:Give it a rest by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      The point here is strategic. US manifacturing is going down hard. They need to replace it with something, and some people see IP as a new way of transferring funs out of other nations into US.

      Problem is, Chinese have learned from being colonized by various countries in last few hundred years well, and they don't trust West at all knowing all well how we treat those who submit. So they'll throw US another bone to get its attention, while driving their own agenda of becoming THE superpower in this century and being able to put their terms on the deals rather then accepting someone else's.
      But does US really have a choice at this point? They seem commited to the current course, and are going through the motions now, knowing full well that if IP concept collapses, their economy is done for - too much is riding on it already.
      Funnily enough, ignoring IP, specifically European IP was how US became a superpower it is today in the first place. But no one ever said that corporate types that seem to be policy makers in the West have a good memory.

    32. Re:Give it a rest by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      No, that's techno, not disco.

      --
      $ make available
    33. Re:Give it a rest by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I think most people agree that the US does not produce the best dance music anymore,

      No one produces decent music any more. Modern " dance" makes you look like you're having an elliptic fit whilst unable to change a skipping record.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    34. Re:Give it a rest by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      dvdorderonline has a highly profitable business, because of the price fixing cartels in the west they are able to take unrealistically high margins on their products while still undercutting the competition and offering a superior product

      If you think their products are superior, then you haven't seen them. I had a boxed set from them recently (an ill-advised purchase resulting from a superfluity of alcohol) that had a 65% failure rate owing to extremely poor handling in some cases and poor encoding in others. Furthermore, there was absolutely no acknowledgement of the copyright holders. Sure it's a profitable business - criminal organisations usually are.

    35. Re:Give it a rest by shnull · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe trying to tackle the new world power will teach them a lessen in how to achieve a trade-vietnam victory ? Saddest part is this witchhunt is paid for with your dollars and not with the industries...

      --
      beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
    36. Re:Give it a rest by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be so sure.

      :-(

      Hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

    37. Re:Give it a rest by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      A microchip is much harder to copy...
      It will take time and require specialized equipment to reverse engineer the chip, then it will require specialized equipment to actually manufacture new chips... In a competitive market for something as complex as a processor, by the time you have gone to the time effort and expense to clone a processor, the original vendor has come out with something new and you're left selling last years technology at bargain bucket prices with very thin margins. Even the latest technology in a commodity market like processors has relatively thin margins, making it unattractive to cloners.

      And your example does not result in job losses of blue collar workers, the chinese clone company will need just as many blue collar workers as the american manufacturer (and chances are the american manufacturer will have outsourced its manufacturing to the chinese anyway).

      Counterfeiting is only profitable in markets where the margins are unreasonably fat, like fashionable clothes (cost the same to manufacture as generic brands, but cost 100 times more), intangible media like music/video/software, and overpriced "enterprise" equipment like routers or firewalls (open up a lowend router or firewall and see just how generic the components are). If you charge a reasonable price for your goods relative to how much it cost to produce, you wouldn't have a problem with counterfeits... Noone tries to produce counterfeit walmart jeans.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  2. Still ahead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How much money have these industries made by exporting manufacturing jobs from the US to China?

  3. Always the same lieing story that no one believes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like the imaginary losses, my ass could'v given a higher imaginary estimate, and for a cheaper price!

  4. You seriously expect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    a US administration helped to power by media/entertainment groups to give a rest protecting their vested interests? Think again.

    1. Re:You seriously expect by mjwx · · Score: 1

      a US administration helped to power by media/entertainment groups to give a rest protecting their vested interests? Think again.

      So...

      Which administration got in again?

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  5. I have estimated by Thanshin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've estimated the US government owes me 1.63 billion dollars in lost sales.

    Because of the existance of the US, I lost the chance of selling my ballpen for exactly 1.63 billion dollars.

    Yes, my claim is much closer to reality than theirs and no, I won't explain how exactly I'm entitled to money from sales I didn't do, either.

    1. Re:I have estimated by thijsh · · Score: 1

      You should see the tax estimation you'll get after that... "On averagage ballpoint salesmen sell over a billion ballpoints per year, your failure to report these sales (or imaginary sale losses which now carry legal status) to the IRS results in the following tax estimate. Not all pages fit in the envelope so you'll receive the second part of pages containing all zeros in a later shipment..."

    2. Re:I have estimated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well played, Sir!

    3. Re:I have estimated by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Beat me to it. Personally, I'd put "lost sales" down to my inability to persuade close the deal, but I guess Microsoft hasn't stopped beating their wife whenever she flirts with another guy.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  6. Would be nice to see by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is the kind of piracy that we need to worry about because it isn't just a matter of copyright infringement, it is a matter of fraud. When you make a knockoff copy of something and sell it to someone as legit, you are defrauding them, and you really are causing economic loss to the company who legitimately makes the product. That is a good deal different from simply copying something without permission. It is something worth trying to shut down because it is a real crime with real victims.

    I'm all for spending resources on cracking down on crimes where there are victims. I'm not so interested in spending lots of resources on victimless crimes.

    1. Re:Would be nice to see by thijsh · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Indeed, this are some of the most common levels of infringement consumers deal with:
      1. 1) P2P free sharing Infringement, this destroys no value (free evaluation copy) and gives free advertising of the product. When the product is any good the company selling the product should actually benefit from this (or so I've read from numerous studies. for music for example P2P creates net extra value for everyone except the likes of Britney Spears...).
      2. 2) For-pay infringement, this can be seen as destroying value (people actually willing to spend money on a product pay it to someone else). Earning money from infringement is a clear violation (as opposed to the grey area of sharing for free = borrowing). Otherwise you would have businesses selling infringed material everywhere which will actually cause great losses for the companies selling the product.
      3. 3) For-pay fraudulent infringement, these products destroy value and reputation since the products are often of inferior quality although fairly indistinguishable. This is the type of violation companies should battle with any means they have. This generally never happens in the digital space (with some fake software as the rare exception), but is very common with products like clothing and electronics.

      Only level 2 and 3 infringement cause actual damage to companies, but somehow 'copyright infringement' has become synonymous for the level 1 infringement... Which seems to be caused by the large campaigns launched by the MAFIAA and their associates, who exclusively fight against the level 1 infringement. The Pirate Bay provides a service and makes ad-revenue, but does not belong to level 2... but some sites do ask money for downloading the products straight from them and clearly commit a level 2 infringement (which may actually cause damage), but these are never attacked bij the MAFIAA and brought to court. If they claim to defend their financial interest in their products it's raises the question: Why don't they actually fight the infringement that causes the damage to the revenue?

      This clearly demonstrates that the MAFIAA was not interested in protecting their existing revenue stream, but are only trying to create an additional (unrelated) stream of litigation-revenue from the consumers who commit level 1 infringement.

      Please note that the article is about a new development to combat the extensive level 2 & 3 infringement in China (since the copied media is just sold on the street there it would count as level 2), so it seems the MAFIAA is finally moving along to more legally stable ground (since these violations can't be debated so easily, especially when piled up with the level 3 violations and presented to the Chinese)... I wonder, if we can be bankrupted for infringing some songs, would the Chinese be executed for selling Britney Spears???

    2. Re:Would be nice to see by xtracto · · Score: 1

      When you make a knockoff copy of something and sell it to someone as legit, you are defrauding them

      LOL,

      The though of someone really believing that the Avatar DVD they are buying in Tepito is the "original" is really funny.

      Of course everybody knows they are not the original, the people that buy those DVDs or Games do it mainly because otherwise they won't be able to get the same "amount" of media.

      Also AFAIK (a friend of mine from Colombia and her German wife live there), in China is the same. People go to specifically buy the cheaper version knowing that it is not the "original" they sell in the standard market at a higher price.

      The fact is that the people selling the pirated media have created a secondary market, which functions like a real free market and in which people that cannot participate int he primary (legal) market go.

      In Mexico at least there have been efforts to make CDs very cheap (from USD$6.2). Unfortunately neither DVDs nor Game publishers have done this.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    3. Re:Would be nice to see by the_womble · · Score: 1

      Except that, especially in Asia, most buyers know that they are buying a counterfeit: so there is no damage to reputation due to lower quality, and there is no evidence that the buyers would otherwise have bought the original manufacturers goods (which would be a lot ore expensive).

    4. Re:Would be nice to see by Bert64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Copyright infringement generally doesn't result in inferior copies anymore... That was the old propaganda, that pirate copies were inferior to legitimately purchased copies and this was usually true in the days of analog media... Today, a digital copy could be absolutely identical to the original, or it could actually be superior (eg the DRM or other consumer-hostile features are removed).

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    5. Re:Would be nice to see by thijsh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The inferior fakes are not copies, but a physical product disguised as the real thing... Have you ever seen a fake Levi's Jeans for example, it almost looks exactly the same but doesn't last as long by a long shot. I've also read reports of fake Cisco hardware that look and function exactly like the real thing... They only found out because people reported who contacted the helpdesk reported a nonexistent serial number... This is exactly the kind of counterfeiting China is well known for, and the resulting products are almost without exception inferior copies.

      I do agree though, digital pirated copies are without a doubt a 'value added' product! No DRM, phoning home, added portability and compatibility etc. I've downloaded games I bought because the game crashed on install or required the CD in the drive, or another example: a Blueray movie can't be played with an Xbox360, but a Blueray-rip can (full HD)!

    6. Re:Would be nice to see by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The though of someone really believing that the Avatar DVD they are buying in Tepito is the "original" is really funny.

      I bought a set of Stargate SG-1 discs which are clearly counterfeit before you even try to play any discs (and some discs don't play.) I had no way to know it was counterfeit before I bought it. The retailer is now nonexistent. I live in California and bought them from someplace in the midwest. Thanks for trying to participate, though.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Would be nice to see by Silentknyght · · Score: 1

      The inferior fakes are not copies, but a physical product disguised as the real thing... Have you ever seen a fake Levi's Jeans for example, it almost looks exactly the same but doesn't last as long by a long shot. I've also read reports of fake Cisco hardware that look and function exactly like the real thing... They only found out because people reported who contacted the helpdesk reported a nonexistent serial number... This is exactly the kind of counterfeiting China is well known for, and the resulting products are almost without exception inferior copies. I do agree though, digital pirated copies are without a doubt a 'value added' product! No DRM, phoning home, added portability and compatibility etc. I've downloaded games I bought because the game crashed on install or required the CD in the drive, or another example: a Blueray movie can't be played with an Xbox360, but a Blueray-rip can (full HD)!

      In this case, the "fake" merchandise is--almost certainly--ripped off from the very same manufacturing plant that makes the official stuff. They're likely manufacturing the official stuff in China, anyhow. Also, as to quality of "fakes", if you've ever been to a manufacturing plant, you may be well aware that more than Brand X is made at a single factory; it's just not efficient for most products. Products not 100% to spec may be rebranded as Brand Y. Where do you think the "store brand" items come from?

    8. Re:Would be nice to see by stewymcstewstew · · Score: 1

      This is the kind of piracy that we need to worry about because it isn't just a matter of copyright infringement, it is a matter of fraud. When you make a knockoff copy of something and sell it to someone as legit, you are defrauding them, and you really are causing economic loss to the company who legitimately makes the product. That is a good deal different from simply copying something without permission. It is something worth trying to shut down because it is a real crime with real victims.

      I'm all for spending resources on cracking down on crimes where there are victims. I'm not so interested in spending lots of resources on victimless crimes.

      While I agree that this is certainly a more legitimate form of copyright theft I do not agree that resources should be spent combating it or that there are any real victims.

      I would consider this "the cost of doing business." If you want your copyright respected then manufacture your goods in a country that respects said copyrights, you can't have your cake and eat it too. I find that business model of:

      1. Export manufacturing to developing nation

      2. Force your own ideals of copyright on that developing nation

      To be incredibly offensive to both the developing nation and the nation in which the manufacturing was in originally.

    9. Re:Would be nice to see by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Just curious, did you pay the full price? (or an amount similar to the full price)

      If you did, then yeah, I agree it sucks, but in the places I am mentioning (specifically Tepito in Mexico City) like flea markets in the majority of Mexico, you have the option to buy the "original" DVd/Game at $400 pesos ~ $35 USD or the "clones" (they don't like you to call them "copias piratas") for $20 pesos ~ $2 USD.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    10. Re:Would be nice to see by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      While you *can* get inferior fakes, this is rare with digital media, and the inferior quality versions are usually labelled as such (ie camrip etc) and generally only exist because there is no other option (ie no digital copy of the movie has been released yet)..
      So you could argue that they aren't really inferior at all, they are the best available at the time only to be superseded later.

      I have seen fake jeans and various other fake products, they vary wildly in quality but then the originals are often not of the highest quality either. A lot of fashionable clothes are actually of very poor quality and not really intended to be used many times - most people who buy them quickly discard them once they cease being the current fashion.

      It is fairly common for goods to be manufactured in china, and for the factory to continue producing "fakes" after the original production run is over, these "fakes" will generally be absolutely identical to the originals...

      But this all digresses from the original point, which was about copied digital media... And most "pirate" copies of digital media are actually superior to the original (no drm) and also cost less. Under a true free market, the superior and cheaper product should win out and you'd be a fool to buy anything else.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    11. Re:Would be nice to see by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If they claim to defend their financial interest in their products it's raises the question: Why don't they actually fight the infringement that causes the damage to the revenue? This clearly demonstrates that the MAFIAA was not interested in protecting their existing revenue stream, but are only trying to create an additional (unrelated) stream of litigation-revenue from the consumers who commit level 1 infringement.

      A more logical reason is their hidden agenda -- fighting their competetion, indie labels. The RIAA has radio, which never (except low watt college stations) plays indie music, while the indies have P2P. There actually is monetary damage there; if I buy four $5 indie CDs, that's twenty bucks I don't have to buy a Mattellica CD. That's a very good reason for fighting P2P, but they can't very well admit it, can they?

    12. Re:Would be nice to see by thijsh · · Score: 1

      That's why I cd baby, oh yeah! :)

    13. Re:Would be nice to see by tepples · · Score: 1

      The RIAA has radio, which never (except low watt college stations) plays indie music, while the indies have P2P.

      Indie artists can allow their work to be used in podcasts. People who want to listen to indie music instead of RIAA music can buy an MP3 player and a micropower* FM transmitter, subscribe to an indie music podcast, and sync new songs on daily.

      * FCC Part 15 or foreign counterpart

    14. Re:Would be nice to see by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Just curious, did you pay the full price? (or an amount similar to the full price)

      Yeah, the latter. I ordered it from some spot on the internet. Interestingly the cardboard inside of it is punched like a PCB. Some kind of protection/holding mat for PCB drilling? Recycled materials!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:Would be nice to see by Nyder · · Score: 1

      This is the kind of piracy that we need to worry about because it isn't just a matter of copyright infringement, it is a matter of fraud. When you make a knockoff copy of something and sell it to someone as legit, you are defrauding them, and you really are causing economic loss to the company who legitimately makes the product. That is a good deal different from simply copying something without permission. It is something worth trying to shut down because it is a real crime with real victims.

      I'm all for spending resources on cracking down on crimes where there are victims. I'm not so interested in spending lots of resources on victimless crimes.

      I have NO desire to spend money on crimes against corporations.

      They can spend the money, but leave me & my gov out of it.

      --
      Be seeing you...
  7. Re:Still ahead - and always: "MADE in CHINA" by kubitus · · Score: 1
    no matter if they can press licenses/royalties or not!

    :

    see http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=99

  8. Human Rights vs IP by Sinn3d · · Score: 1

    Every kind of human rights group complain about human rights being thrown out of the window... nah, can't have stop building our iphones! (or whatever)

    So we look the other way when it comes to human rights, but when the IPAA mentions 3.5 billion dollars... stuff needs to be done!

  9. the US is fucked thanks to "intellectual property" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China took the smart road of producing actual property - if another country wants it, they have to buy it. Meanwhile, all the US makes is "intellectual property", which other countries can simply copy for free. The result: wealth constantly moves from the US to China, and almost never the other way around - except in loans. Give it a few more years and China will own this place. Given that it's more trouble than it's worth to try to enslave a population so filled with foolish ideas like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, fair wages and working conditions, and so on, they'll likely just exterminate everyone. (After graciously evacuating the politicians and corporate executives who have so happily handed the US industrial base over to them, of course.)

  10. Chinese respone by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    The Chinese response: Oh okay, we will pay those 3.5 billion. Hell, tell you what, we pay the next decade or so in advance. 35 billion. Now lets see, where can we get some dollars. Oh yeah. Dear USA, we have 35 billion dollars in debts we would like to collect on. Could you please pay us, plus interest and late fees?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  11. Fuck those gooks by w00tsauce · · Score: 1

    We even export our piracy to China. WE INVENTED STEALING

    1. Re:Fuck those gooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      racial slur....

    2. Re:Fuck those gooks by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I hope you're going for a "funny" mod. First, copyright infringement is not stealing. Second, stealing has been around since the first caveman stole the second caveman's shiny rock.

  12. Piracy isn't what it used to be in China by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    Piracy isn't what it used to be in China. Things are getting cleaned up. The last time I went to the dodgy computer market, all the software which used to be in heaps of boxes was gone. This was kind of annoying as I needed the Chinese version of InDesign - ended up getting it from bittorrent instead.

    Retail piracy in general is down, way down. The government is starting to crack down. Pressure from the US government is actually useful in this regard, as it gives the government a foreign bogeyman to blame for shutting down copyright infringement industries. The fake market in Shanghai that I used to buy all sorts of stuff from is a shadow of its former self. Half the junk I can get for cheaper in the States, anyway, because of the exchange rate.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Piracy isn't what it used to be in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah maybe you just caught a bad day.

      Usually it takes a few days after a raid to put the stuff back up there... I did see a decline though over the years in hongkong as well - but the reason is more that ppl tend to download their stuff nowadays anyway, opposite to 20 years ago where downloads speeds were way too low to matter for that, it was much cheaper to go to the markets and buy stuff there...

      nevertheless modern anti-piracy government action usually concentrates more on counterfeit products like "copies" *cough* of trademarked clothes (usually the copies are coming from the same factories as the originals .... of course exceptions to this also exists but can be sorted out quickly when you look carefully at them) or other kinds of products

    2. Re:Piracy isn't what it used to be in China by Steauengeglase · · Score: 1

      Yep, bittorrent has really been hurting their business. Damn Pirates.

  13. WTF... by Bert64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So the chinese have saved themselves $3.5 billion, good for them...
    If copyright was enforced then 99% of those chinese people would simply never have had any of this stuff at all. They would be using locally chinese produced media, or freely available media instead. Most of these people simply couldn't afford to pay what US media companies demand.

    It does show where the US governments priorities lie tho, they are willing to lean on the chinese over copyrights but couldn't care less about human rights or the environment.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    1. Re:WTF... by thijsh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If recent history has shown anything about this subject it's that in most western nations human rights and the environment come second after corporate (copyright) interests. So that confirms your point, the political priorities lie exactly where the money is, and there is no money in human rights or the environment (except when you sell these things out).

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

      yes lets feel bad for china, those poor enslaved people with a communist government, which they voted in themselves

      fuckem

    3. Re:WTF... by King+Coopa · · Score: 1

      Actually the whole human rights thing with China is related to corporate interests. The Chinese are able to exploit their population into damn near slave labor which draws a lot of economic progress into their country. Basically Chinese companies are getting more business than American companies and since US companies can't sink to their level of exploiting workers, they want to bring them up to their own.

      The US in general couldn't give two shits about human rights or the environment in China. We're just pissed that China is ruining our empire by not playing the game to our standards...

    4. Re:WTF... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't really vote for the commies to rule them. The commies forced themselves upon the Chinese public, under the guidance of that smelly peasant 'Mao'. The commies and public, in turn, forced themselves on the poor tibetans.

    5. Re:WTF... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      If copyright was enforced then 99% of those chinese people would simply never have had any of this stuff at all. They would be using locally chinese produced media, or freely available media instead.

      There is no "locally chinese produced media", really just very low budget TV soap operas. A side effect of rampant piracy.

      Most of these people simply couldn't afford to pay what US media companies demand.

      US media companies are very good at pricing by region. Go to Korea for your DVDs, and you'll find they're dirt cheap in comparison to here in the US.

      There have been many attempts to sell extremely low-priced media in China, something on the order of $1 each. At the stated $3.5 billion figure, every man, woman and child in the country could afford about 3 movies, and with the reality of families, that turns into a decent number of films per household, per year.

      I'm sure they're happier getting dozens of movies every year, before they're out in theatres, but they could most certainly afford to go legit.

      It does show where the US governments priorities lie tho, they are willing to lean on the chinese over copyrights but couldn't care less about human rights or the environment.

      The government has been leaning on China over human rights for years, and things are slowly getting better.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  14. Documentation to read for a few good laughs. by hebertrich · · Score: 1

    Cryptome is publishing a Chinese document detailing use of the internet in their country.
    http://cryptome.org/0001/cn-internet.htm chapter 3 " Guaranteeing Citizens Freedom Of Speech on the Internet "
    is hilarious :)
    That's an official position paper that outlines the government position.A good read.

    Really funny excerpt : The Constitution of the People's Republic of China confers on Chinese citizens the right to free speech. With their right to freedom of speech on the Internet protected by the law, they can voice their opinions in various ways on the Internet.

    hmm ROFL LOL

    1. Re:Documentation to read for a few good laughs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok "free speech - made in china" is maybe an oxymoron, but at least they have a more usefull "freedom": the unrestricted right to do reverse engineering and this is a lot more valuable freedom for a true technical geek than "freedom of political speach" ;-)
        At least they will not get this ACTA b*llsh*t..

  15. Gee, someone else who doesn't understand debt by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Informative

    National debt is not like loan sharking. You do not loan money for whatever terms you like and then call it due at a convenient time. More properly, it is investing in a nation.

    So, in the case of the US you can buy treasury securities of various kinds. They vary from T-bills as short as four weeks to T-Bonds as long as 30 years. In the case of a short bill, it is sold at a discount and then pays face value. So If you bought a $1000 1 year T-bill with a 5% yearly interest, you would pay $950 for that note. At the end of 1 year, the government would pay you the face value of $1000. In the case of longer bonds, the government pays you a fixed percentage of interest every 6 months and then the principal when it matures.

    Now there are important things to note about this:

    1) There is no mechanism for cashing in early. you can't come to the government and demand your money now. It pays at a set time. The only way to get money early is to sell the security to someone else. This is done frequently, they are traded on the open market like other things. However, you cannot get your full value for such a thing. If you try to tell me a $1000 t-bill, I'm not paying you $1000. I might pay you more than you paid if it is close o maturity, but you are going to take a loss over the value of the note.

    2) The securities pay in US dollars. That means that you get paid the stated amount in current US dollars when it matures, not your currency. So if something happens to severely devalue US currency, you get less. The government says it'll pay you X many US dollars. It does not promise they are worth a given amount.

    3) These are nothing more than IOUs from the government. In fact you don't even get physical notes anymore, it is all just entries in the US treasury. So while it would have a severe impact on their credit, the US government can simply default, meaning refuse to pay on their securities. There is nothing anyone can do about there, no court they can be taken to to order payment.

    4) As I noted, the securities are an INVESTMENT. China has invested in them for many reasons, stability, to help back their currency, etc. To get rid of that investment could have some rather negative consequences.

    So please, do yourself a favour and learn a bit more on debt and lending in general, but in particular how it works on a national level. It is not at all a loan shark kinds of arrangement. Acting as though it is is rather silly.

  16. China will tell the U.S. to f*** off. by VShael · · Score: 1

    And the U.S. will have no other choice but to officially comply.

    China holds too much of the US debt, for the US to be demanding ANYTHING.

    1. Re:China will tell the U.S. to f*** off. by thijsh · · Score: 1

      Well, the US has been a good customer of the Chinese for many years, I'm pretty sure they could demand some extra Sambal with their food.

  17. Wishing US good luck with that by c0lo · · Score: 1

    ... owing to China 867.7 billions in May 2010, US will need it (hmmm... think what would happen if China would start dumping US bonds just for the fun of "raising some money to pay for IP breaches").

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  18. Why couldn't china do that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why couldn't china do that? Why could it not say "Well, reduce your debt by 30Billion and we'll call it quits, meanwhile, where's my money, mutha?"?

    The reason why not is because the US REQUIRES there to be dollars out there being used. If China "spends" them on copyright infringement, no money moves about but the dollars are no longer out there.

    That is US's problem.

    PS how come it's the debtors' problem for spending stupid when it's a human individual, but when it's the US, it's absolutely CORRECT to overspend?

    1. Re:Why couldn't china do that? by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      Why couldn't china do that? Why could it not say "Well, reduce your debt by 30Billion and we'll call it quits, meanwhile, where's my money, mutha?"?

      Because that would be stupid, China bought US debt for a reason, it's not just like some bar tab accumulated by a dodgy customer. China likes to buy large amounts of foreign currency to allow them to effectively peg the value of the RMB lower. So much so that if one year China decided to import four times as much as usual, it would end the year still slightly in the black. Government bonds allow them to invest that money in a conservative way since the People's Bank of China trusts the US treasury to pay on its debts in the agreed manner at the agreed time.

      However, things are changing, China's investments have diversified, specially towards the mining industry and have largely stopped increasing their share of treasury holdings, while continuing to hold some. China is not buying treasury bonds to help the US treasury, it just needs a good place to put US dollars, if it did not want that debt, it can and would divest itself of it pretty quickly.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
  19. Red mans Stop, Green means Go, Not Piracy by tvlinux · · Score: 1

    Many Chinese do not even follow traffic signals! Piracy should be very low on the teaching scale. Many Chinese do not follow the rules, it is the culture, that is on reason why corruption is so bad in China. The US is just a puppet of the rich multinational corporations. So that is why it the "US" wants to enforce it law upon China. China's National government has done very good in improving the lives of many Chinese, and protecting them. The US economy is sinking fast and the US government is more worried about Wall Street than Main Street. The US should worry about the people not the large Multinational Corporations.

  20. SEVEN PERCENT by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

    Thats how much US national debt China holds. A measely seven percent.

  21. Oh, the US knows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US knows it, it's just our government that doesn't for some reason.

  22. Paying for pirated software or entertainment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We criticize record labels for taking huge cuts from the profits while contributing basically nothing other than functioning as a middleman. The artist who produced the material gets a few measly cents from every dollar you spend on a song – and that seems wrong.

    A big-business pirate is like a record label which makes money off the artists and gives them nothing.

  23. As consumers start to produce by tepples · · Score: 1

    this are some of the most common levels of infringement consumers deal with

    With the rise of YouTube and other online self-publishing venues, people who would have otherwise remained consumers are becoming amateur producers as well. Now they have to deal with 4. reusing more of a work than fair use allows and 5. coincidental similarities between their own work and an existing non-free work.

    1. Re:As consumers start to produce by thijsh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Youtube and fair use is a far stretch, we've had audio removed from a clip op children performing a theatrical dance version of 'thriller' (with real crappy audio), and that old song is so important they need to block all audio... If home video stuff like that isn't fair use what is?

  24. Easy ride for Peter Noone? by tepples · · Score: 1

    What makes you think the lead singer of Herman's Hermits deserves an easy ride?

  25. China wins. by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    America: "Stop making bootleg stuff or we'll stop trading with you."
    China: "Okay, stop trading with us and we'll make our own stuff for ourselves. We have the factories, and now we have the know-how. All you have left is the know-how."
    America: "..."

  26. IS this why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is this why my shipment is stuck in customs...?

  27. and when you consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that other nations are doing more business with china themselves each year, this lessons continually th eUSA power they had.

    THINK CANADA, you come sideways on ip at us all time now we go make deals with India and china two nations that are not part of ACTA and hold over 1/3rd or more of the worlds population.

    THATS the result of ip protection we then make a deal with Russia(whose already teaching open source in schools) and poof your screwed.

  28. IP is America's export by doctorpangloss · · Score: 0

    There's no strategy here. Enforcing IP laws is not about "submission." It's about justice. We cannot steal China's main export, which is assembled goods, trinkets and whatnot. We enforce when people steal goods, as a matter of law and justice. The Chinese government is expected to enforce laws it agreed to in the WTO.

    The Chinese government can find some po-dunk blogger dissident out of millions, but it can't arrest the very wealthy man running a factory producing millions of duplicated, counterfeit DVDs? It's not just a plain and simple violation of the WTO; it's a double standard that costs America real money, real jobs.

    IP is more than just a "concept;" real people have to work to make films, real people get employed by the music and game industry. We can't change the reality of how millions people are employed in this country, and you can't dismiss the way these millions of people get paid over an academic debate. The Chinese gotta enforce IP because and only because we enforce the laws that protect their exports.

  29. lets be consistent microsoft... by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1

    Microsoft has encouraged the pirating of their software in China by publishing their position that it is better to have Chinese using pirated Windows than other operating systems. I think Windows is a dime on the street in China, and I think that price is about right considering economy of scale and the amount of time Windows has been on the market in one form or another.