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."
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?
"Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record." ~ 1984 by George Orwell
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. -- Isaac Asimov
I'f you're really upset then why not write a letter to your congressman ...
I find rubbing my lucky rabbit foot to be much more effective - and pleasant.
What you call 'taking advantage of you' could also be called 'free advertising'. A copy of a work (song, painting), have previously been treated as a 'product' in and of themselves. That will change to being a 'physical copy'. A digital copy of a work can be reproduced perfectly and in an infinite supply.
So that now the 'value' of a copy is going to be for practical purposes, zero.
The music industry is fighting this, but simply can't win that war. Eventually new artists will skip the established labels and go straight online and the labels and 'old' companies will wither.
As an artist, use the power of the internet to drive sales of the intangible things you create. Like playing a live concert, or an actual painting. That is the way of the future.
And to be sure there will be some 'need' for a good marketing company to promote bands, but it will be less of the master/slave relationship that the labels currently have and more of the customer/client relationship that exists in normal non-monopoly situations.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Perhaps artists should look into either creating new work or getting a real job like the rest of us instead of expecting to get paid in perpetuity. Any work done should automatically go into the public domain after 30 years regardless of whether or not the artist is still living. Righs should also be non-transferable. Copyright is a contract between artists and society, they create work and we grant them a temporary monopoly on distribution, what's happened is they still have their monopoly but are refusing to let the work fall into the public domain. The market is adjusting accordingly.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
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
Have you forgotten how the (un)Patriot act was passed? Remember the days after 9/11, while the Anthrax scare was really raging? Every sniveling, whining dog in Washington wanted action, immediately, to take the fear out of their timid little hearts. They ALL voted for the (un)Patriot act - liberals, conservatives, libertarians, male and female, black and white, straight and queer, big and little, it just didn't matter who or what they were. In fact, the (un)Patriot act alone makes the best single argument in favor of the conspiracy nuts who think it was an inside job.
"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
How long before they start to censor sites with political views not approved by the government, or blocking sites deemed 'risks to national security'
That's the kind of thinking that leads to statements like "If we let gay people get married, what's next - marrying your dog?" Please stop the Bush/Obama=Hilter madness. If you're going to make the case for hypothetical future govt abuses, at least come up with something remotely based on reality.
Similarly, selling bootleg DVDs on the street is illegal and those who do so are shut down and arrested/fined. This has not in any way led to the shutdown of legit video stores that sell "objectionable" content. To make that link is to create a classic straw-man.
tired of my country trying to police and control everything
By any measurable standard, the average American citizen has more freedom of movement and behavior than anyone in human history. And the trend continues. Gay/inter-racial marriage, hardcore porn, sodomy, public nudity, medical marijuana, etc, etc, etc. There has been an explosion of new rights and freedoms in the 20th century. What freedoms do you feel you have lost?
If you're concerned about your right to steal music/movies/books/etc by getting them from torrent sites, then you are claiming that your "right" to steal trumps the creator's (intellectual) property rights. Not exactly what you had in mind I don't think, but that's what you're complaining about in the current context.
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 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
I think part of the problem is that DOJ is considering counterfit drugs and unauthorised MP3 downloads as exactly the same thing, when in reality they are very different matters.
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.
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.