Slashdot Mirror
DOJ Ramping Up Crackdown On Copyright-Infringing Sites
An anonymous reader writes "The Obama administration is just getting started in its mission to shut down rogue websites that illegally share copyrighted content such as movies and music. The White House's intellectual property czar, Victoria Espinel, said Monday that the Internet community should 'expect more of that' pre-emptive action as the administration ramps up its efforts to combat online copyright infringement — especially the illegal copying and sale of pharmaceutical drugs."
Christ what next declaring another stupid war, like 'the war on drugs'. How long before they start to censor sites with political views not approved by the government, or blocking sites deemed 'risks to national security'. I really get tired of my country trying to police and control everything. What ever happened to wanting more freedom.
Drugs drugs everywhere a drug
mucking up the profits breaking my business plan
Do this, don't do that, can't you control the drugs?
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
So I won't be able to order Pfizer terramycin from Greece anymore and will be required to spend 10x the amount and purchase it locally?
I'm struck with CD... As an artist, a musician, I don't want my work to be copied and people to 'take advantage' of me. But on the other hand, I feel like copyright is an artificial device that only hurts the economy and, on a higher level, human progress as a whole. We can't have 'copied' drugs for much cheaper, thus some people who might have been able to afford said drugs are no longer able to... just to secure the profits of some corporation? I must be missing something here. Someone cure my CD?
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
...especially the illegal copying and sale of pharmaceutical drugs.
'Bout time.
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
Wikileaks !
Yours In Zurich,
Kilgore Trout
Freedom isn't free and our laws are produced by a robust process of competitive bidding between plutocrats and corporations. Ergo, our laws make us perhaps the freest country ever!(and certainly Jesus' favorite...)
QED LIEberals!
Freedom costs a buck-o-five dude
The teachers will crack any minute, purple monkey dishwasher.
"DoJ's announcement immediately won the praise of the entertainment industry and renewed interest on Capitol Hill for legislation that would grant the administration additional power to shutter malicious and rogue websites."
The entertainment industry. Yup, of the people, by the people, and for the people. More like the oligarchy.
he's addressing this huge security problem. Maybe he can require everyone who is a non-union member to have a license to surf the internet or undergo a body scans and forensic HD searches daily. I imagine he will have terrorists tried in criminal court in NY and copyright violators tried by a military tribunal in Gitmo. There'll be another 250 Million in the re-election fund for our president from Hollywood though. Once the FCC finishes asserting complete control over the intertubes the Pirate Bay will be a moot point anyway. Bitter? Angry? Disgusted? Not me.....
"I didn't spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called 'Mr.Evil,' thank you very much!"
federally enforced outsourcing .......
like they are going to stop anything , it's been what 30 years since reagan war on drugs ? still easier to get some dope then beer after hours in NYC and i suspect all us cities
I don't mind if the government shuts down US websites that are violating US law, as long as they give the site owners fair trials. Going after the whole world and not proving violation of law on the other hand...
New Boss = Old Boss
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I just hope the good erotica was uploaded with permission. Would hate to see that go.
Home of The Suki Series
This is the first crack in the US's losing control of the internet. Not that the US or any one entity "controls" it per se, but we did have a big influence in the technical direction of it.
I wonder if this has anything to do with a certain poison-pill that has been circulating on the torrent sites.
Under what authority can the federal government do this without a warrant? The commerce clause? What about the fact that torrent sites and files don't actually host the infringing content. Is that not protected via caselaw somewhere?
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
You're talking out your ass, fuzzy. Freedom isn't free - you have that much right. However - your conservative minded friends are busy taking freedoms away from the common man. I'll remind you: copyright was NEVER MEANT to ensure that the owner could make a dollar. It was only intended to ensure that IF ANYONE made a coin or two from his work, then he should get part of it. Every bone head moron who thinks that beating the kid down the street to the copyright and/or patent office with something new should guarantee an income for life needs to pull their bone-heads out of their asses. Hey - Microsoft came to market first, with an easy operating system that any moron could use. That means what, exactly? That everyone in the world should pay Microsoft forever? What utter fucking BULLSHIT! Back in the day when patents and copyrights were limited to reasonable periods of time, everything that made Win 3.1 and the W32 crap work would be public today. That's right. The added bits and pieces that made the small jump from W32 up to Win98 would be coming up for expiration in about two or three years. (Fact is, Digital Research beat Microsoft to the W32 thing, which is exactly why Microsoft turned their big guns on DRDos) No - freedom isn't free. And, you'll remember that when the commoners are spilling your royal blood on Wall Street. Our laws are totally borked right now because your heros are crooked SOB's who buy the laws they want.
"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
This sort of campaign accomplishes about zero in the real scheme of things. All they are doing is removing the public face of piracy while the sources and distribution networks still exist. It will just push piracy off of Google and back to the dark reaches of the internet where it has always existed. In fact, why even bother with the internet when there are plenty of DVD fabs in Southeast Asia cranking out true physical copies. Those have real economic harm to the entertainment industry as they redirect actual sales vs phantom sales lost to piracy over the internet.
I downloaded the movie that came from... And don't call me dude.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
Wikileaks have shown in very clear detail how the U.S., often at the request of U.S. business (and isn't this exactly how imperialism works?), meddles in the affairs of other nations... sometimes with guns and explosives. The U.S. seems to be expanding or otherwise pushing its weight around a lot lately where pushing its agenda around. Now it is using its ICANN control to mess with DNS and it won't be long before IP routing is also a tool in its belt as well.
All of this is going to (and already is) make people very angry with the U.S. and eventually stop doing business with U.S. companies out of principle. That will pretty much spell the end of the U.S. as we know it.
The U.S. exists in a world among MANY nations. Once we turn the majority of them against us, we're in trouble... I think we already are.
It's time for the U.S. to behave. The next round of Wikileaks will turn up the truth further by exposing the REAL causes of the problems -- world banks.
Aaa, why doesn't she call the Chinese to help her? They're excellent at handling copyright. They have this(they may even hold a patent and copyrigth on it) methodology: they take the copyright, polish it and stick it the only place in the world that will have a perfect fit - the holder's arse. I think that when you implement it you'll really increase innovation and reduce costs. It's those same copyrights and patents that owe me thousands of dollars from inflated(actually not updated, but stayin the same for nearly 15yrs) prices of blood glucose testing strips.
But that "Hope/Change thing is not working out".
Isn't it ironic that for all of the screaming about Republicans ignoring rules and laws and that its the Democrats that are the worst offenders? I'm not singling out any one party, just that when it comes to stuff like this, the record and movie companies have invested big in the government.
Also, this lays to rest the myth that Republicans are bought and sold by big business. They may well be, but its now clear Democrats have been bought and sold by the same people.
Which "high campaign donation" industry will the US gubmint protect next?
Far as I am concerned the U.S is abusing it's own law for the gain of the rich distribution companies. As this is not about the copyright infringement as they so often claim.
The life time of a tv shows is short, less then five years for the poorer ones and up to few decades of years for the better ones. If you want to see what I mean, just check the re-runs at your tv station.
Life time of movie is sometimes even shorter then of a tv show.
In both cases there is also the rule that good stuff is going to going to return a profit while the lesser stuff isn't going to do so. Over the last few years the companies have been blaming P2P downloads for the losses of the trash tv shows and movies. When it is in fact them self are only to blame for spending money on making junk movies and tv shows. I don't even feel sorry for companies how make crap and expect it to make a profit.
The torrent and as other P2P network threatens the distribution networks of the old media companies. Truth of the matter however is that DVD is not going any time soon. But Blue-ray might however (a writing for a different time). But it is also important to notice that the media companies have become greedy and want more profits then last year, even statically speaking that might even be impossible due to market facts and figures.
So the media companies do what companies do today. They abuse the law or more exactly. They get the politicians around the world to abuse and write the law for them (this issue is not bound to the U.S) and make sure that the law that are passed are always in there favor and not the public. This has been the trend for over 40 years now (before I was born) and it is getting worse every year. As the companies grow ever so bigger and have ever so more money to spend on this issue with lobbing politicians directly.
This leads to abuse of the law, as we are now seeing all around the western world and everywhere else for that matter. As companies gain ever more control over the political system and the law making process. This is unethical relationship of the companies with the political system that should not be allowed anywhere in the world. Worst examples of this abuse are in China and other countries where dictatorship prevails. In other countries they use different ways to get there way and to circumvent the corruption laws that are in place in western countries.
This leads me to the main topic here. The words of the Victoria A. Espinel where she confesses without releasing that she is going to abuse the law in favor or corporatism to crush the copyright infringements that do not hurt them in any way at all. Abuse of ICANN is just one of those steps that they have been using. But ICANN is a international body (or it should be) and therefor cannot uphold only U.S laws when it convince them to do so. I make no mistake when I claim that Victoria A. Espinel is in bed with RIAA and MPAA on this crusade against harmless copying of digital data. As facts is going to tell, the MPAA and RIAA have failed to show that copying of digital data harms them in any way.
I do not care about fake drugs, as that stuff can be harmful to people. There are good reasons to stop that. As fake drugs can and do kill people. However that is no excuse for abusing the law like before.
My message to politicians is quite simple. Follow due process of the law as it is set by the constitution (in your country). If you cannot do that the public has every right your fire your sorry ass forever in the next elections or before that.
It is also clear that favoritism of politicians to big corporations needs to be banned by public demand.
In regards to computer games (PC) it can be argued that cracked computer games can short the profits of the companies that make the games. It is however clear that in many cases that the price tag on one computer game is getting too high, as the game companies are demanding too high of a profit margin from a single title. The lesson here is quite clear. Lower your pr
All in $subj.
Out of curiosity, what do they mean by "shutting down" websites? Remove domain names from DNS servers or really shutting down the physical servers? As far as I can see so far they have primarily fooled around with the international DNS system. If it's just that, who cares.
While comments seem to be transfixed on the "hip" rejection of authority, did anyone actually stop to consider the nature of the infringement?
We're talking about people sharing content not for academic purposes, criticism or comment, but simply because some individuals believe that their convenience outweighs another party's right to control the distribution, exhibition or other presentation of their work, as well as the right to decide who to grant license to do the same.
I use other copyrighted works all the time, but my work is academic in nature, it falls under criticism and comment, and even though I'm not strictly required to (especially with the 1201 rulings by the Librarian of Congress earlier this year), I obtain written permission from the copyright owners, as well as the digital masters of the content in question.
Suffice it to say, I've never been served a DMCA notice... and I'm not likely to. If you want something from someone, try asking their permission... I know, I know... baby steps. How about we just start with not whining just because you hold your convenience and the "right to share" as some moral obligation owed to you, without any consideration in kind for others rights to the material they created.
This is not to say that there aren't any flaws with DMCA, but not once have I set foot on a message board and actually found anyone discussing the real flaws with that legislation... e.g. the failure to distinguish between enduser ISPs that facilitate, filter or host content versus Tier 1 and 2 ISP's that are mere conduit. The basic concept of the DMCA, however flawed it became in practice, was to provide two things: 1) clarity around digital piracy's definition and the remedies that could be sought under criminal copyright infringement (that copyright infringement is criminal is a much older law and a different debate all together) and 2) immunity to internet service providers (including the little guys, and some of you might be running a host here or there) who are acting as mere conduit and should not be held responsible for the infringement committed by their subscribers.
But before anyone here throws me in the EFF stockade for daring to question those on their "share and share alike" crusade to stop and consider the immorality of expecting others to "share" without asking permission or giving remuneration, let me note that the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act under which, and with the help of the Section 1201 ruling in April, it is TOTALLY and COMPLETELY legal for you to make, share or perform copies, even circumventing copy protection schema, if its use is noncommercial in nature and falls into one of the six classes defined by the Librarian of Congress as of April 26, 2010. Those six classes included DVD's lawfully obtained where copy protection schema needed to be broken in order to incorporate them into a presentation for academic, noncommercial comment or criticism purposes.
There's a concept of consideration-in-kind in both capitalist AND socialist societies called consideration (in capitalist societies it takes on the form of profit, in socialist societies it takes on the form of shared enterprise and, well, equal remuneration for unequal talent which is an inequity in itself)... It is hypocritical to find one kind of selfishness (the desire for personal convenience over another's remuneration) as more morally praiseworthy than another, especially when the latter has, in principle, a greater basis as it is the owner of the work asking for remuneration for their work. David vs. Goliath comparisons abound, but these hyperbolic rants often forget that the vast majority of content creation, protected under copyright law whether registered or not, is performed by either independent creators or works for hire by an overwhelming majority of recording, performing and other artists who rarely ever break even on the advances loaned to them by the record labels, motion picture studios, etc. I'm not exaggerating here.
In the record industry, over 85% of ar
Why are you even making a "conservatism is bad" argument here? It's the left that has been the side more firmly in favor of vigorous copyright controls and enforcement, and it's the more leftist administration that is making this more of a priority. Liberal vs Conservative is not necessarily drawn in "non-moneyed interests versus moneyed interest" lines, nor does it mean that the left is not cozy to some big business interests. They are very interested in vigorous government pre-emptive intervention on the part of the media conglomerates.
It's action without due process. No trial, no charges, just seizure. That's illegal.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
I like how they are spending time/money on things that possibly take money away from big corps such as RIAA and MAFIAA but don't spend any money cracking down on spamming and scamming, which take money/time away from normal Americans. We know who is important to them
Well, there was one Senator, Russ Feingold, who didn't vote for it. He's now been replaced by some "Tea Party" guy.
Letters to one's representative actually can make a difference.
At least, if you are in a district without a lot of movie, Disney, or software money.
The Lobby is very powerful, and the votes that shift on this issue (except for the votes that are shifted by having more money) aren't large in number. So letters or complaints only have a shot at an effect if the district you are in doesn't have a lot of movie money or actors.
The law is absurd as written--I could envision a sliding scale of punishments, for example, where:
--1. Any copyright fine is directly proportional to your income. Limit the cumulative fine for infringing without trying to commercialize your infringement to the greater of (5% of your income per year, per offense, or 25% for all offenses) or ($500 per offense, of $2500 for all offenses).
--2. Your fine is inversely proportional to the success of a movie. You get the highest fine for pirating a nobody's product (because they have had no reward) and a nominal fine for pirating a movie that has made over $100 million. This is all that's necessary to encourage creation of the work in the first place.
--3. Settlements are not permitted to have "sued pirate agrees not to criticize the RIAA/MPAA" clauses.
--4. You are not criminalized for noncommercial offenses.
Wait... explain to me again how it is possible to get a patent on a chemical compound (as opposed to the method and process for producing that compound), especially a naturally occurring substance? If you're making money by ripping off other people's copyrighted material and selling it, you should go to jail. If you're saving lives by providing life-saving medication to people that otherwise could not afford it, the ethics are not as clearly defined.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Wow, I didn't know I could torrent viagra from the pirate bay!
Gives whole new meaning to the term "Seeder"
It's the left that has been the side more firmly in favor of vigorous copyright controls and enforcement, and it's the more leftist administration that is making this more of a priority.
Which left? Where? Oh, you mean the Democratic party. Yeah, those guys who kept ripping on the "professional left" for being "too far to the left" all this past election cycle. Man, those guys are real leftists, I tell ya.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1888084&cid=34464476
and
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1888084&cid=34464138
and
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1888084&cid=34463878
and
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1888084&cid=34463016
and
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1888084&cid=34462614
To quote Clint Eastwood, as Mr. Kowalski in "Gran Torino":
"Ever notice that every once in awhile, you come across someone you shouldn't have fucked with? THAT'S ME..." Clint Eastwood as Mr. Kowalski
Then, per my subject-line & the URL's above where metrix007 came into a thread, ad hominem attacked me, & lied, was caught lying, skimming, & making HUGE technical errors + far more!
(After his calling myself, an internationally multiple time published programmer/analyst of 17++ yrs., names & worse & finding out he was off, WAY off)
He finally tried to attack some points I challenged him to, & "knocked himself dead up out" with his own words, lies, skimming + trolling, & on only 1 of 15 points in favor of HOSTS files I made which he evaded to no end until those posts above?
ROTFLMAO!
(Mod me down if you like folks, but I am only paying him back, in kind, & letting HIS OWN WORDS do him in!)
APK
P.S.=> Oh, by the way: metrix007 has a NEW "Troll theme song" by AC/DC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y55wvdcCJfk
"SHOT DOWN IN FLAMES" by AC/DC!
Rotflmao... nothing could fit him better, especially after the above... apk
hai im ur rabbit pls stop rubbinz mai feetz dey is gettinz chappd k thx
Dude, rabbits don't speak lolcat.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
The fact that my satirical post was not immediately recognizable by all as such, without a shadow of doubt, makes me very, very nervous...
what's going on with slashdot? I browse at 4 so I can get the Best Of quickly, and I get stuff like this about pulling heads from assess and choice phrases like "fucking bullshit"... Modded Comments didn't use to be this way. have the grown ups moved somewhere else, if so, Where?
"pharmaceutical drugs"
This coming from the administration that was telling agents to look the other way unless narcotics were coming through the border.
But I guess that the abortion that is the insurance company bailout solves all the woes of senior citizens (and even those who are far younger!) who can't afford to pay the artificially inflated prices that Pfizer and Friends deem to charge, no?
They were clearly defined by the people who paid for them to be defined: "What I do is good and legal, what you do is bad and illegal, no matter how identical the two acts otherwise are".
Cap it to 10x the retail value of the work infringed when the infringement is for personal use only? Eg, someone gets caught pirating a $12.99 album, they pay $129.90 in damages. This wouldn't apply to someone redistributing for commercial gain, or using a work infringed for commercial purposes, eg pirating Office. But for personal use only, it sounds fair-ish.
>We can't have 'copied' drugs for much cheaper, thus some people who might have been able to afford said drugs are no longer able to... just to secure the profits of some corporation?
Well, not quite.
We tend to think of the patent system as absurd, and it does have a lot of shortcomings. But the Constitution allows Congress to create the patent system "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" ("useful arts" means technology, more-or-less). The idea is to make it worthwhile for a person or organization to invent something of value.
For the vast majority of artists and inventors, it is not worthwhile. You do it because you have an idea, and even if you get patent or copyright protection, you never make a penny.
But that doesn't mean we don't need some intellectual property protection for society. A film like Spider-Man could never be made without it, because it just costs too much money, and you need to convince people with a hundred million dollars that it's worth spending on Spider-Man. The only expensive films that would be made would be propaganda pieces put together by Rupert Murdoch and Bloomberg and a few others, and even these would probably be worth a third or less of big-budget films today.
In drugs, it's even worse. It costs a fortune to develop a new drug. So long as we use private drug development, there has to be an incentive that lets people make back their money on drugs, or else they'll never invent the drug in the first place. It would slow the pace of drug development by half or more if we simply discontinued the patent system. Probably more.
So there's a good reason drugs are expensive, and a good reason for patent and copyright. It's just that the way they're designed, they have a lot of victims.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Wait... explain to me again how it is possible to get a patent on a chemical compound (as opposed to the method and process for producing that compound), especially a naturally occurring substance?
Genes are currently patentable. Look up Monsanto (especially Monsanto Canada v Schmeiser) or the fact that there are PEOPLE whose genes are patented by corporations.
Even ignoring the ethics of either gene patents or file sharing, I'm pretty annoyed by their lumping patent violations with copyright infringement...
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
I am as outraged as the rest of Slashdot and BoingBoing over 'Big Content's influence and control of the US government.
It may help to understand WHY this is happening (IMHO). The US doesn't MAKE anything any more. The only thing we produce is ideas and entertainment. We can see the writing on the wall, China and others are stepping up their ability to produce ideas and entertainment as well. If we aren't to lose our position as a (the) global economic powerhouse we need to either start making stuff again, or make sure we can squeeze every dollar possible out of our ideas and control everything to do with the creation , distribution and consumption of those ideas.
Personally I don't think it will work, but I think that is the driving force behind these efforts to force the rest of the world to obey our IP laws and have our government act as a tax-funded police force for 'Big Content'.
Disclaimer: IANAL, IANAC, IANAxIAA.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
The new war on "Information Terrorism" is about the join forces with the war on copyright infringement in pushing for IT related laws at the direct expense of free speech (and hence, democracy). Anonymity and secure peer-to-peer communications are at the root of this conflict on both sides. Consider doing something instead of just watching.
they pressured the US government to pressure other countries to adopt copyright legislation treaties more stringent than what the DMCA was, and then use that to basically cause the US to now have to adopt those as well.
As I understand it, the copyright provisions of ACTA were merely a rewording of 17 USC sections 512 and 1201 in the language of treaties. Read the the parts about "graduated response" in context, and discover that they aren't "three strikes" any more than the repeat infringer provision of 17 USC 512(i)(1)(A). What do I misunderstand?
"conservafags"?
Go back to 4chan, THIS IS SLASHDOT!!
I support copyright. You need to be able to make money from creative works if we want people who work on that kind of thing full time. So there has to be some kind of protection, exclusivity, otherwise you can't make money in a capitalist society. Now if you want to replace capitalism with something else, that's another issue so let's not discuss that here. However in the framework we have, we need something like copyright.
Fine, however we need to recognize that it IS an artificial construct, and the only reason we have it is to, as the Constitution says "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Well to best do that it needs to be a reasonably limited period. That ensures a few things:
1) You can't just make money forever by doing one thing. If you wish to continue to make money, you'll have to continue to make new works.
2) It ensures works get distributed, not locked away. When they are under copyright you want to distribute it so you can make money for the short period permitted, and after that anyone can distribute it.
3) It allows for others to build on existing works. Creativity does not exist in a vacuum, we build on idea from the past. When idea enter the public domain it allows them to be used as the foundations of new ones.
So I agree, we need a shorter copyright term. Personally I'd do it something like thus:
Upon the creation of a work you get an automatic 10 year copyright, no work required. This means that even if you create something you don't think has value, but realize later it does you aren't screwed. During this time you have unlimited control and rights over the work. You do as you please with it. At the end of 10 years you have three choices:
1) Do nothing, the work then falls in to the public domain.
2) Register for an exclusive extension. You then receive another 10 years of exclusive, unlimited control. After that the work will be public domain.
3) Register for a non-exclusive extension. You then receive another 30 years of rights, however you are required to license derivative works for a standardized fee to all that want it. You can profit from your work, and from the derivatives, but you MUST license it for derivatives and the fee you get is fixed.
My objection now is this forever copyright thing we've got going.
He's a lawyer.
What politician isn't?
Elected officials make or administer the law. So one of the ostensible qualifications to elected office is a familiarity with the law. As I understand it, this requires a candidate to be a lawyer, a paralegal, or at least someone who took some political science and criminal justice classes.
It's action without due process. No trial, no charges, just seizure. That's illegal.
Two words...Executive order.
There, fixed that for ya.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Genes are currently patentable, and same-sex marriage is currently illegal in several states. Just because something is currently legal doesn't mean it is moral, ethical, or in the best interest of society for it to be so.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
While the Obama administration may be "liberal" when it comes to social service programs (and he's a centrist by global standards), that is really the extent of it. He is FAR to the right of most world leaders on "law and order", war, business regulations, government structures, etc.
The fact that the republicans are even further right doesn't decry "liberalism" but rather just points out the fact that our "democrats" are further right of most countries "conservatives" on most topics, and far from being "communists" (which is just inane, when that is trotted out).
The "liberal" viewpoint is to support communal goods and individual liberty over corporate good and profit EVERY TIME. This is a conservative ideology, even if our democrat centrist (again, by global standards) government is in favor of it.
If you want to "do something", take up arms. Nothing else will do.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
Citation needed. The common wisdom is that the purpose was to ensure that if the work is popular, then the artist is rewarded appropriately (you know, like every other product sold, so that the free market can actually work). This includes the kid down the street downloading for nothing else apart from his own profit. If everyone was like this kid, and copyright couldn't touch us, then our culture would die a slow and painful death. Thankfully, the people who suggested copyright had some foresight, and didn't restrict it only to for profit sharing.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Any investigative resource not spent on investigating bankers is a resource wasted.
You'd think a just legal system would first require the state prove its claim that a particular website is indeed infringing, but that kind of thing is apparently not important to the Obama administration. Napster at least got the benefit of a trial: In court you can argue your practices don't constitute contributory infringement, even if you end up losing like Napster did. In the future, it seems, you won't even have the benefit of a trial.
The entertainment industry is finally getting a return on its cash investment in the Obama administration.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
We have become sheep flat and simple, from the TSA taking away nail clippers because they can be used to take over a plane to being limited on how many people can gather in one place.
until people see that nothing will change
()
I am wondering if last night's Comcast outage was because the Fed's were installing Echelon 2.0. This time it is to use our tax dollars to find civil infringement of movies and music.
After all, it's not welfare when wasteful government spending benefits billionaires, is it?
Privatize the profits and publicize the costs! Isn't the the American motto?
* Carthago Delenda Est *
Maybe there was a *whoosh*-ing sound over my head as I read your post, but on the off-chance that I'm *not* missing something, the Bill of Rights does not apply only to laws written by Congress. The Bill of Rights sets limits on THE GOVERNMENT, which includes the President. The fact that "We the People" have grown complacent on our rights does not change the fact that executive orders are no less bound by the Constitution -- including all of the Amendments. In other words, GPP was correct.
Having said that...the Constitution is nothing but a really cool piece of paper if the people allow the government to violate it at will. The last nine years don't make me very optimistic about whether it has any value other than as a somewhat interesting historical document any longer (Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, NSLs, NSA wiretapping, TSA scope-and-grope, etc.).
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Of course it's bullshit. Because nobody, not even Microsoft, has ever said any such thing.
Straw man arguments are lies.
I don't really consider that marriage should be a concern of the state, except that it makes collecting and allocating taxes easier.
I *do* consider myself a libertarian, but I'm certainly not represented by the "Libertarian" party. I *do* consider it a function of government to make available a quality education to all children (and adults). Also, I consider that a simple linear income tax is reasonable. But one along the lines of y = mx + b, where b is so set that everyone is guaranteed a minimal income sufficient to support them (though they might need to move to where it's cheaper to live). Most of our wealth, remember, is due to the investments made by our ancestors dating back to before Archimedes. And we are all descendants from anyone living that far back that had any descendants at all.
This becomes especially important in the current and coming decades when the number of jobs will be shrinking as more and more jobs become automated.
That said, I didn't distinguish between individual income tax and corporate income tax. Those are totally distinct. Corporations aren't entitled to ANY rights until they start being bound by the normal laws on things like theft, fraud, homicide, etc. And putting a corporation in jail is a bit difficult. I still think that the tax laws should be radically simplified, but I see no reason that corporations should be allowed to go on welfare. But there are the expenses involved in filing tax records, etc., so b probably shouldn't be zero. This, however, is as a matter of pragmatic decision, not of justice. In justice most corporations that currently exist should be disbanded for wholesale ignoring and corruption of the law. (Not all, and I'd be willing to entertain examples of corporations that have acted morally and at least not committed any capital crimes. I'm sure there are many.)
As I said, there isn't a candidate on the ballot that represents my views. I think that pretty nearly ANY form of marriage is reasonable. As long as divorce is permitted. And as long as the welfare of any dependents upon the marriage is upheld. For that matter, I don't believe the FDA should be able to restrict the availability of drugs. I *do* believe that it should be entitled to insist that it be allowed to rate the drugs in a manner that it decides is appropriate, and to require that the informational material on how it rates the drugs be available to the purchaser at the time of purchase, and for consultation afterwards. So it should be able to rate, say, heroin as a dangerously addictive drug, but not be able to prevent someone selling it as a cough remedy. (It's original intended use, as I understand.) It should also be able to require that any contaminants be listed. And selling drugs that do not match the specifications should be considered at least fraud, and possibly, depending on the contaminants, assault with a deadly weapon. (N.B.: Some forms of pollution should also be considered assault with a deadly weapon, with commensurate penalties.)
P.S.: Acting as an agent of a corporation should not absolve one of guilt for one's personal acts. And such acts should be prosecuted. Technically today there is no absolution, but in practice the only individuals who get charged are occasional scape-goats. This is not acceptable. If the superiors of such an individual knew or had reason to know about the action then they should also be liable. Deliberate evasion of knowledge is not an acceptable defense.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Dear Mr. President,
You may recall how we helped elect you to presidential office. 50 years ago, a man with your experience level would have been laughed out of the primaries if he attempted to run for president. We contributed to your campaign with continously underhanded degradtion of your opponents, emphasizing nation origin (race) was not a factor yet at the same time running 'historical documentaries' on your specific national origin, as well as an obsessive celebrity gossip style following of your personal affairs.
In return, we would appreciate swift action on the following case numbers, be aware however we really want these to be illegal even though they are not specifically outlawed. In addition, we would appreciate increased regualation of public resources (to boot out any small competitors) with a focus on emerging technologies (such as digital distribution over public networks) that way our aging business model is protected at the expense of the public (it's easier to have you legistlate these things; change is expensive).
We'll be sure to distract the public during this time with season iv of desperate couger's housewives of real miami (Civil participation in democracy is for agenda toting extremists). We look forward to working with you in 2012,
Sincerely yours, the CNN, FOX, MAFIAA, NPR, NBC et al.
References, please.
How do we know its not already happening?
And there is plenty of freedom here still, for the privileged few. The rest of us, well we better shut up and be happy with what we got.( and we can reminisce on what we had )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
That was the test bed to see what they can get away with, and a sign of things to come. There are dark days ahead.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
... while in general I think consenting adults ought to be able to make any sort of love arrangements they want, I do have a couple of issues with polygamy. For one thing, polygamy as it's actually practiced in North America tends to involve multiple marriages arranged between a man and some number of women, by the leader of some religious sect. I question whether there's true "consent" involved here.
Also, your choice of words is interesting: "polygamy" vs. "polyandry" or "polyamory". Meaning, the union of one man and multiple women. If this kind of arrangement would become widespread, you'd have the male half of society divided into two groups: the lucky few who were able to score a wife (or several), and the remaining masses who would have little hope of ever reproducing. Given the destabilizing nature of that, I think society has a vested interest in maintaining at least some semblance of equality of opportunity to find a mate.
Does that mean I think multiple marriage arrangements ought to be illegal? I'm not sure. But I'd be a lot more inclined to support the idea if 1) it didn't involve semi-coercion for the parties involved, and 2) there was support for arrangements other than 1 man - multiple women.
You are a hypocrite. YOU are the one engaging in "share and share alike" and then crowing about how you happen to fall under an exception to the law.
Any money that Lars ever made off of me was the result of a single act of piracy of one fan.
Once he became successful and middle-aged, he forgot that. So did Gene.
The situation with creative works is a little bit more subtle than a toddler screaming "mine mine mine!".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
never mind the debate about whether it's right to aggressively 'protect' the rights of pharma companies, did anyone actually see any pharmaceutical sites at all in the initial list of seized domains? I only remember file sharing sites and counterfeit fashion stuff.
Sounds like the classic PR tactic to me: cite the most horrible possible thing your new law could be used to prevent, when it's actually going to be used for something entirely different. 'We need these CCTV cameras to protect us from child-molesting terrorists! (oh, but we're also going to use them to have you sent to Guantanamo Bay for parking illegally. But don't think about that too hard.)'
some artists tried sharing their own music for free on P2P networks. Unfortunately, on those networks, it does not tell you what is copyrighted and what is not.
That depends on what you mean by "what is copyrighted". All original works of authorship are copyrighted from the moment they are fixed in a tangible medium. If you mean what license is attached to a work, then yes, failure to recognize license information and make it conspicuous and searchable is a defect in several popular P2P clients. If you mean whether the work was eligible for a copyright in the first place (see the case of "My Sweet Lord"), I don't see how it's possible for even a work's author to determine whether his creation has already been created by someone else.
4chan
The common wisdom is that the purpose was to ensure that if the work is popular, then the artist is rewarded appropriately (you know, like every other product sold, so that the free market can actually work).
If copyright worked like the free market, then copyright holders would have to bear some of the consequences of infinite supply, rather than just reaping the benefits.
This includes the kid down the street downloading for nothing else apart from his own profit.
No, copyright was supposed to protect against large scale, commercialised infringement.
If everyone was like this kid, and copyright couldn't touch us, then our culture would die a slow and painful death.
That explains why there wasn't any "culture" at all until a few hundred years ago, right ?
You're talking out your ass, fuzzy. Freedom isn't free - you have that much right.
I argue that while freedom is not free, is much less expensive than giving it up for increased security.
Here are some citations (and I don't need Wikileaks to find them):
1. TSA budget for 2009 - roughly$ 8.1 billion dollar
2. cost of single month of war in Iraq and Afghanistan (waged also in the name of security) - 11.1 billion dollars
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Firstly I think that copyright and Patent need a major revamp. So why is the crackdown a good idea. It isn't except if we can get some kind of protest going :-)
1. Why should tax payers pay for this ?
Tax the copyright and patent holder for all the patents they hold on a yearly basis. Taxes gets used to enforce the patent/copyright rather than our money.
2. Why a good idea ?
If you don't want to pay you $100 a year to keep your copyright you lose it, simple as that. This would satisfy many parties. Not the ideal situation but something we can live with. This should discourage filing frivolous patents as you have to pay a maintenance fee. If you are not actively building something you will lose money.
As far as copyright is concerned by all means assign copyright to a product (book,movie) etc for the first year. Do the stats but I'm sure 1 year will be enough to recover costs. Then let the client pay a yearly fee to keep the copyright on a product active.
Just my two cents worth.
Huh? How exactly am I engaging in an unsolicited request to "share and share alike"?
I fall under the exception only for one type of usage. For all other things... casual viewing/listening, etc. I PAY for the material I acquire. All the material I use in any exempted criticism is obtained lawfully.
So explain how I'm a hypocrite: I don't engage in piracy or circumvention of copyright protection systems to obtain any material. I either buy the material or it's press material made available by the author to accredited members of the press.
I have thousands of dollars of audio and video in my collection for items I've acquired outside the course of criticism/comment.
This situation is not more subtle than a toddler screaming. It boils down to convenience at the expense of another's rights. You don't have any inherent right to creative works you didn't author. No one is obligated to furnish you with access to them.
But if you really think it's more complicated than that, please do enlighten me as to a single, legitimate reason, i.e. one that completely excludes personal convenience/gratification as the underlying motive.
And again... My entire point is that if you want to be granted license for use without paying monetary consideration, then ask the copyright owner permission.
I have permission, in writing, for every piece that I use... and I asked for it in advance.
why don't you pay that buck then dude, this war is a pointless waste on resources but everyone with half a brain knows that by now
beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
When I say "work like the free market", I mean to allow demand to reflect supply. That is:
a) Consumers buy only what they want
b) What consumers want, they get
In order to ensure b), which is of vital importance, we need copyright, or at least some other proven system (of which I have looked and found none yet).
It's also interesting that you say "copyright holders ... [reap] all the benefits", when it's actually us who reap the extra culture. Did you forget about that pivotal detail, or simply turn a blind eye?
Again, citation needed. It is my understanding that the people who proposed copyright saw from early on that creating a loophole for non-profit infringement would eventually render copyright completely useless. After all, what's the point of copyright if anyone can just download their own copy for free, legally? For that matter, who would ever buy an illegitimate copy, when they could legally get an equally legitimate free copy? Seriously, who?
(I don't see why everyone jumps immediately to this strawman. It's not like it's ever convincing.)
Yes, it explains why there was no culture until a few hundred years ago. It explains why the vast majority of culture, spread extremely thinly to today's standards, was accessible only to the incredibly wealthy. It explains why careers in music were restricted to playing only very locally, and no recording at all. It explains why things like books and movies were not even feasible.
For the common man, culture sucked until only a few hundred years ago. You know how much (often crappy) free legitimate music there is floating out there? Well, divide that into a tiny fraction, and that's the kind of culture you're gunning for. I have absolutely no fucking clue how anyone with half a brain would pine for the "good old days" before copyright, unless they were multimillionaires pining for the days when they could lord their culture over the common peasant.
Self-entitled pricks such as yourself have lost sight of just how fortunate you truly are.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
For some reasons governments in the west do not realize that if the people want a change in IP, then they will have it no matter what 4th amendment bashing steps you apply. In Sweden we see the government subvert its own principles and laws to get at the pirate bay and affirm a biased and possibly illegal prosecution, they also fine a guy 400 for POSTING a PUBLIC LINK! (http://goo.gl/Xjy8j), France, UK, are next with more stupid rules that restrict freedom and will never solve the problem. Why is every issue fought in the same manner as the drug war? Its like people have lost the ability to think.
As a non-American I often listen on in bewilderment when I hear American's talk about their left-wing and right-wing parties... From where I stand they are both pretty far right. I can understand that American's don't like left-wing politics, but it's absolutely insane to think that the only thing left of the Democrats is communism. To be brutally honest, apart from some minor differences between the Republicans and Democrats, I can't really see a lot separating their policies. There *is* a huge difference between the social backgrounds of the people that identify with the two parties, so I often wonder if that's why people think they are different...
As a non-American I often listen on in bewilderment when I hear American's talk about their left-wing and right-wing parties...
Believe me, as an American I have the exact same reaction.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
There *is* a huge difference between the social backgrounds of the people that identify with the two parties, so I often wonder if that's why people think they are different...
I think there actually is a substantial difference on matters of social policy. For example, Republicans tend to support things like banning gays from adopting children (for moral reasons! thinks of the children!!) and from getting hospital visitation rights for their partners (because all gay relationships are based on selfish hedonism!) and anything else that upholds Good Christian Values (TM) (as determined solely by southern evangelicals) whereas Democrats tend to support things like abortion rights, religious and ethnic pluralism, and diversity in general. Oh, and science, which certain large American religious sects seem to see as evil.
On major affairs of state, things like diplomatic policy, military policy, and economic policy, you're right, there is basically no difference between the parties.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Why are you even making a "conservatism is bad" argument here? It's the left that has been the side more firmly in favor of vigorous copyright controls and enforcement,
It's both actually - the problem is that people that own the patents and copyrights have money and money funds campaigns. More entertainment sources fund the dems so they propose **AA legislation, more money from telecom and pharma goes to conservatives - hence the argument against net neutrality and pharma patents. In the end it really isn't an argument of which side is crooked, it is which way that they are crooked.
In order to ensure b), which is of vital importance, we need copyright, or at least some other proven system (of which I have looked and found none yet).
What evidence do you have to support this ?
It's also interesting that you say "copyright holders ... [reap] all the benefits", when it's actually us who reap the extra culture. Did you forget about that pivotal detail, or simply turn a blind eye?
No, I'm just not as prone to fallacies as you are.
Again, citation needed.
I suggest you read the history section on Wikipedia's Copyright page. You may also want to consider the number of countries which have things like "Fair Use" allowances, allow downloading and similar non-commercial infringement, or simply turn a blind eye to anything that isn't commercial infringement. Some USA-specific evidence is that until very recently, only commercialised infringement has been a criminal offence, and pursuing perpetrators outside of organised commercial infringement operations practically unheard of.
If Copyright really were about *every* copyright infringement, and not primarily about commercialised infringement, then "Fair Use", "Fair Dealing", time-shifting and "personal" infringement in things like mix tapes would never have been allowed in the first place.
It is my understanding that the people who proposed copyright saw from early on that creating a loophole for non-profit infringement would eventually render copyright completely useless.
And what do you base this understanding on ?
After all, what's the point of copyright if anyone can just download their own copy for free, legally? For that matter, who would ever buy an illegitimate copy, when they could legally get an equally legitimate free copy? Seriously, who?
Lots of people, apparently, since movie theatres are still going strong, DVD sales are massive and new TV shows are being pumped out on free-to-air every year.
I frequently go to the cinema to see movies (which I then generally download as well, once the DVD or BR rip appears). I do this because even though I have a relatively impressive home theatre, it still can't hold a candle to even a semi-decent cinema, to say nothing of the opportunity for a social outing. Similarly with music - I see bands often, and then typically download the same music, for much the same reasons.
There's plenty of money to be made from the creative arts even if "anyone can just download their own copy for free".
(I don't see why everyone jumps immediately to this strawman. It's not like it's ever convincing.)
Because there's not really any other way to interpret a statement that essentially the only reason we have culture at all is because of Copyright. The assertion is ridiculous on its face, not only because culture clearly existed long, long, LONG before Copyright ever did, but also because all of the heavy lifting for "culture" was also done in that time period. Contemporary culture is based nearly entirely on rehashing, repackaging and recreating previous works (and this has been true for thousands of years).
Yes, it explains why there was no culture until a few hundred years ago. It explains why the vast majority of culture, spread extremely thinly to today's standards, was accessible only to the incredibly wealthy. It explains why careers in music were restricted to playing only very locally, and no recording at all. It explains why things like books and movies were not even feasible.
These are all functions of technology, not Copyright.
For the common man, culture sucked until only a few hundred years ago.
For the common man, life sucked until only a few hundred years ago. You are conflating the massive average increase in leisure time over the last hundred-odd years (ie: the ability to actually experience culture), along with huge technological improvemen
AFAIK gays cannot marry in Australia. Marrying your dog is absolutely no wuckers mate.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
You might have misunderstood me (I suppose I wasn't entirely clear on the subject). By "system", I don't necessarily mean that a law needs to be passed, or money needs to be specifically invested. I just mean that we need some kind of plan of how exactly we're supposed to provide ourselves with culture. It may be just as simple as "scrap copyright and be done with it". However, I also stipulated that such a plan must be proven, that is, it needs to have been implemented long enough for us to see without a reasonable doubt that it could replace copyright. So, "scrap copyright and be done with it" needs to be implemented (i.e. we need artists to choose to release via this method, i.e. by choosing to totally reject their copyrights, and not have to fall back on copyright in order to support themselves).
As for evidence why we need a proven system, I guess I don't have any. It's a pretty fundamental tenet of modern philosophy to require some kind of evidence for assertions. So, if you assert that we are guaranteed to have a rich culture if we scrap copyright, or if we weaken copyright to the point of uselessness, then I would expect, at least, some kind of evidence, if not a working prototype model.
Ha! This from the person who presented us this little strawman gem?
And I should point out, you haven't actually pointed out any fallacy I've committed. It's a fairly clear fact that, without any significant number of people willing to provide us with culture, we're simply not going to get culture. It's not going to magically appear because you made some some unfounded accusation of committing a fallacy.
I skimmed it. I could find no explicit or implicit statements that said copyright was never intended to stop non-commercial sharing. Hence, my point that you and the OP were talking out of your respective revisionist asses.
That is another strawman, supported on a false dichotomy. I never claimed that every copyright infringement should be punished, just that it's stupid to "draw the line" at commercial infringement. Are you sure you should be accusing people of being "prone to fallacies"?
I have no problem with fair use. It's an integral part of copyright. It, however, the exceptions necessarily need to be in certain limited circumstances. As I said before, there's nobody out there who actually wants to infringe on a copyright with a commercial dealer. Anyone who wants to infringe a copyright can do it from the privacy and convenience of their own internet connection. If we allow non-commercial sharing, then that's not the exception, that's the rule. It completely defeats the purpose of both fair use and copyright to allow such all-encompassin
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
You might have misunderstood me (I suppose I wasn't entirely clear on the subject). By "system", I don't necessarily mean that a law needs to be passed, or money needs to be specifically invested. I just mean that we need some kind of plan of how exactly we're supposed to provide ourselves with culture.
Why ? Is the some major problem with the way "culture" has been "provided" for the several millennia (+/- a few hundred years) before now ?
As for evidence why we need a proven system, I guess I don't have any. It's a pretty fundamental tenet of modern philosophy to require some kind of evidence for assertions. So, if you assert that we are guaranteed to have a rich culture if we scrap copyright, or if we weaken copyright to the point of uselessness, then I would expect, at least, some kind of evidence, if not a working prototype model.
My evidence is the extensive historical culture - of which the vast, vast majority of contemporary culture is derivative - that existed before Copyright did.
If you wish to make an argument that until Copyright existed, there was no meaningful selection of paintings, music, performance, or other arts, then by all means do so - but please back it up with something when you do.
Ha! This from the person who presented us this little strawman gem?
I asked you to elaborate on what you really meant. You didn't. How is my interpretation a straw man ?
And I should point out, you haven't actually pointed out any fallacy I've committed. It's a fairly clear fact that, without any significant number of people willing to provide us with culture, we're simply not going to get culture. It's not going to magically appear because you made some some unfounded accusation of committing a fallacy.
You are begging the question. You are assuming the only way to generate "culture" is with Copyright, while asking how else are we to provide culture without it.
I skimmed it. I could find no explicit or implicit statements that said copyright was never intended to stop non-commercial sharing.
Of course you didn't. You've already made up your mind.
An example: do you seriously think Girl Scouts singing "Happy Birthday" would have been considered a Copyright violation 150 years ago ?
That is another strawman, supported on a false dichotomy.
It's neither. I'm demonstrating more evidence that Copyright was primarily intended to be for the purposes of protecting against commercial infringement, by highlighting all the forms of non-commercial infringement that are accepted or tolerated, sometimes even enshrined in law.
As I said before, there's nobody out there who actually wants to infringe on a copyright with a commercial dealer.
Rubbish. There are zillions of people happy to buy dodgy copies of DVDs from street markets, or similar - and that's before even getting into related things like fake brand label clothing.
Anyone who wants to infringe a copyright can do it from the privacy and convenience of their own internet connection.
Indeed. Yet they frequently choose to go out and spend money on movies, DVDs, music, TV shows and the like. According to you no-one should be doing this.
If we allow non-commercial sharing, then that's not the exception, that's the rule. It completely defeats the purpose of both fair use and copyright to allow such all-encompassing exceptions.
Er, no, it doesn't because that would still be needed for copyright infringement in commercial situations (eg: movie reviewers, soundtracks, preventing commercial pirating).
Oh? You have some evidence that these weren't also functions of copyright?
Why do I need it ? You're the one insisting the technology behind radio transmissions, printing and the Internet wouldn't exist if not for Copyright.
Back then, when artists could only obtain money from the first person they sold their works to, they worked on com
Maybe there was a *whoosh*-ing sound over my head as I read your post...
One word. . Zeitgeist
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.