Slashdot Mirror
US Copyright Czar Cozied Up To Content Industry
Nemesisghost writes "According to emails obtained via a Freedom of Information request, the U.S. Copyright Czar played an important role in brokering the deals between ISPs and copyright holders to punish subscribers whose IP addresses participated in copyright infringement. From the article: 'The records show the government clearly had a voice in the closed-door negotiations, though it was not a signatory to the historic accord, which isn’t an actual government policy. ... [T]he communications show that a wide range of officials — from Vice President Joe Biden’s deputy chief of staff Alan Hoffman, the Justice Department’s criminal chief Lanny Breuer to copyright czar Victoria Espinel — were in the loop well ahead of the accord’s unveiling. "These kind of backroom voluntary deals are quite scary, particularly because they are not subject to judicial review. I wanted to find out what role the White House has played in the negotiation, but unfortunately, the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) withheld key documents that would shed further light on it," Soghoian said when asked why he sought the documents.'"
How's that hope and change working out for you?
Many government officials go on to become lobbyists. She's just laying the ground work for her next (and much better paying) job.
Politicians serving the industries instead of the public...news at 11
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
And you're surprised by this why...? Because it's BHO instead of GWB? Get real!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
And people wonder why we are currently protesting in the streets over corporate greed and its manipulation of our nation's ideals?
Excuse my language, but this is way messed up. When are we going to enact legislation that disallows this kind of crap while in office, and prevents officials from going from their current position to a lobbying position so quickly? The corruption is becoming so blatant that it makes me want to punch every congress-critter and official I see in the face.
"Most transparent administration ever."
No sarcasm intended, but why is it a big deal when the US government is working with the two entities most closely related to the issue of US laws being violated?
When this guy was appointed, was there any doubt in anyone's mind that his SOLE responsibility would be to act as a shill for the big media industry? It's not like anyone believed for a second that he was EVER going to represent consumer interests or the rights of the general citizenry.
Sadly, that doesn't make him any different than the Congress or President. Hell, even the Supreme Court is ruling that corporations have a *right* to bribe as many public officials as they like. If you want to find someone representing the unwashed-masses-without-lobbyists, you'll have to turn to the EFF. The U.S. government is just a corporate subsidiary now.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Because the groupthink around here is that no one, from copyright holders to the government to ISPs, should do anything about people infringing copyright.
Instead of accepting bad copy paste jobs directly from the articles you're linking to, how about doing some editing. Like, who the hell is Soghoian? That'd be something to establish in your blurb.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Their page is being troublesome, can anyone view the actual emails and post the juicy bits? From the article it seems like the copyright czar is working with people concerned (and being dicks about) copyright. No real surprise there. So there has to be more.
Time to expand the #occupy movement to Hollywood (actually, the RIAA and MPAA HQs are in Washington DC).
With all of the corporate money in politics, I am shocked that this is the way things work. And by "shocked" I mean "not surprised at all."
We really, really, really need to get lobbying and corporate money out of our government.
giggity
You've just made the uber-secret-invariant-no-fly-list. You'll never board a plane ever again (unless it's the one sending you on your Extraordinary Rendition.)
I long suspected the Obama Administration was the one behind the recent agreement between ISPs and the content industry. I'm sure ISPs would prefer to decide on their own which users it is best to keep and which it is best to drop, so the fact ISPs reached any kind of deal with the content industry was a puzzle with a missing piece. It turns out that missing piece was the US Copyright Czar.
I suspect the same thing about recent efforts to shut down domain names: You have Congress pushing for PROTECT IP, DHS shutting down allegedly infringing domains without a trial, and Verizon out of the blue and for no apparent reason deciding to incorporate policies similar to those of PROTECT IP which would better allow DHS to shut down domains it considers infringing. That is the sort of thing that suggests a coordinated effort rather than mere coincidence.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
News at 11.
Occupy!
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Well, for me it is because:
1. The government is way over-invested in protecting copyrights. They have a role to play, but it should be limited to providing the venue for litigation and enforcement of rulings. I don't want to pay copyright-holder's cost-of-doing-business unless I've actually purchased their products - not with my tax dollars.
2. The ISPs previously had no involvement whatever in the copyright issue. That's how it should have stayed. I don't want to pay the copyright holder's cost-of-doing-business by paying my ISP more either.
3. The executive has completely forgotten that it represents ALL of us, not just its favorites. That includes the copyright czar. If she is involved, she should be representing *we the people*. I don't know how she can "broker a deal" between ISPs and major copyright holders (read: not even all of them...) and do a good job for the rest of us, too. I don't think that's possible.
4. This policy affects all of us, but we have no say because it's two multi-corporate interests meeting in secret with the executive branch (see #3 above) to form an agreement which will, in effect, be law.
Why is the executive involved at all? Because just like the copyright holders, it wants to shift the costs of enforcement (which it has taken upon itself, mind you) onto someone else. Hello, ISPs!
Why are people not up in arms about anyone being called a Czar in our government. A Czar is royalty. We should all be screaming about anyone in our government being declared royalty.
I'm not sure what this "groupthink" is you're speaking of, but that's a topic for another day.
I suppose the issue many have is that the "laws" you speak of, in a system putatively set up "of the people, by the people and for the people" do not seem to represent the interests of "the people". The OP describes a scenario in which "the people" aren't involved in the defining of the policies and laws that affect them, thus the resulting policies and laws are rather one-sided and tend to benefit a small group at the expense of "the people". That's what the big deal is about.
and the message being spread "officially" is anything but what many think it is. Go read their home page and you will see demands that government do this, that, and that, to all sorts of parties. Yet you see no demands to get government off the backs of people - all they want is it on the backs of people they don't like.
I am all for people demonstrating their displeasure at the ballot box, we have a working democracy (republic) because we respect the system. It certainly needs an over haul in parts but not as being suggested under the guise of a popular protest.
Really, go read their site, the other day the first five or so WE WANT (I mean these guys come off as "WE ARE, THEREFOR YOU OWE US) were to use the oppressive power of government even more.
That doesn't fit what we are told they are truly marching for.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Yes, another shining example of transparency in our government. /sarcasm
...and yes, I am looking at both parties as I write this.
"We will achieve our goal of making this administration the most open and transparent administration in history" ... "Americans have a right to know whose voices are being heard in the policymaking process," - President Obama
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
What bugs me the most about this is the fact that the government is basically throwing its weight around in order to regulate without having to legislate.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Copyright infringement is not a criminal offense UNLESS it's done on a commercial scale. The government should not be involved in policing this illegal activity except when it is investigating commercial copyright infringement via the FBI. The definition of commercial copyright infringement is infringing for the purposes of personal gain, typically in a monetary fashion.
Therefore, the government should not be involved in individual copyright infringement at any level outside the judiciary, where civil matters are resolved.
also, its long been proven that stricter copyright, patent, and even trademark law leads to less innovation and fewer advances in technology and science.
Its pretty clear that the public interest is that technologies and sciences advance at a fairly rapid rate since they are the core of an expanding economy, along with sound banking, solid technical education, and good trade practices. The US fails on all fronts.
Those that are fit for employment and those that aren't.
---
In my city you have to pay a head tax if anyone is hired and you have to fill out forms that indicate age/sex/race etc. so they can hang you later for [giving| not giving] somebody a job.
No brain, no pain.
Joe the moron Biden has been a copyright industry shill since his senate days. He as sponsored all kinds of draconian copyright bills with the likes of Berman, Dodd, and Hatch, but Biden is the ring leader. Its disgusting really. Then there is Orin Hatch this moron wanted to install software on our computers to monitor us for copyright infringement and destroy our computers if the software thought we were infringing.
The problem is that no one cares and copyright is not an election issue so we are all screwed.
No sarcasm intended, but why is it a big deal when the US government is working with the two entities most closely related to the issue of US laws being violated?
That's like asking why the National Labor Relations Board is stacked with former union heads and works so closely with those unions. The other side, whether it be consumers or employers -- and even employees themselves -- have no seat at the table. Tell me now that's fair representation?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I think this really tarnishes the dignity of his royal personage. A US Czar should not be personally involved in such shady deals. He should have sent one of his boyars to do it. Or at most a low level copyright Knyaz.
...they just cozy up to different industries. Republicans favor raw materials and insurers,Democrats favor the entertainment and tech industries. They both suck up to big pharma.
It used to be that when a new party came into power, they'd spend a couple of years investigating the corruption in the previous administration before getting deep into the trough themselves. Nowadays the waiting period is over. Corruption is the one thing they DON'T attack each other over, except on the campaign trail.
We are the 198 proof..
You need a new lawyer, google 17USC506. Other sections of the law define other roles for the USG as well.
The other issue is that, if you read the article, there is no smoking gun.
All it says is that they were aware of the deal before it was public and were concerned about the spin.
It will be interesting to see the reaction of the US press to this type of obviously shocking corruption. Certainly, in the UK, the career of anyone engaging in such corrupt practices would be completely ripped apart by at least some sections of the media. Clearly, the US regime will need to act to erradicate the widespread corruption of government policy by powerful interest groups, and to curtail the payments to elected representatives by corporate interests. This is what is known is fascism elsewhere. Benito Mussolini stated that this type of capitalism is effectively equivalent to fascism. It will be very interesting to examine the reaction of those who actually believe in democracy (if there are really any left in the foul regime in Washington)
The problem is, once you open up copyright infringement to the planet on the Internet, it is always on a "commercial" scale. We stopped talking about friends swapping floppies 20 years ago. Now you post something on the Internet and everyone on the planet gets to take advantage of it.
Now, if the objective is to destroy the revenue model for any and all digital goods it is working fine. When I can grab a book, movie, music or software for free because "I want it" without any worries about getting tracked down and prosecuted because the scale is just too large it is pretty clear the system is broken. Today the major concern for anything that is done for money is "How easy will it be for people to grab this and not pay?" I don't care if it is software, music or books - the overwhelming concern is how many free copies will get out there?
For some things the idea that only 5% of the people will pay is OK because you are going to make up for it in volume. Or, it isn't a creative work at all but just an advertisement for something else, bigger and more expensive. But in both cases the authors are treating the people like shills - some pay, most won't. If you pay, you are a shill. If you didn't you might think you got something over on someone but in reality you are just part of the plan.
"Regulatory Capture" is an economics term. In the link talkback someone mentioned it, so I looked it up. It basically means the government regulator is sucking up to corporations, letting them make decisions instead of the government (its a shift of power), and is also listed as 'government failure'. What it means is that boardrooms are creating legislation. We went from a democracy, to somewhere between Kleptocracy, Plutocracy, Oligarchy, Plutarchy, but mostly Corporatocracy. Governments are no longer willing to give people a say in government, they bow to and singly serve corporate interests.
This is circular logic. If you are the one responsible for creating the laws, are you then allowed to justify arresting people for breaking them "because it's illegal"? You are assuming a fairness which does not exist.
Yet Another Tech Blog
(but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
the cozy back room deal is probably a lot worse for consumers than we realize.
I'm 70, and there was a time in my early life when Federal agencies upheld their mandate to protect the consumer from greedy or corrupt corporations. Now, the Feds protect the greedy, corrupt corporations from the wrath of of the consumers whom the corporations abused.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
That US Federal Government Officials recieve money from Federal Agencies in France, Germany and Japan ... Even Russia, is nothing new ... not just for the Chink Shit Boy Obama Administration.
Except in the case that the US IRS did not nor does not know about it.
Then, there could be Treason charges.
But who am I. Obama is using more than 100 US Army Troops to move a measly 400 million US Dollars in cash from the Solyndra loan to a bank in Kenya.
The "hallowed" troops are yet again, .... expendible ... as long as a single survivor can punch in the code to the ATM outside the Kenyan Bank to ...deposit the loot.
Obama Boy cares a lot about ... loot.
His favorite thing.
++
Even someone that is pro-copyright could object to these laws/decisions. From shutting off peoples' internet connections because they are accused of copyright infringement to things such as this (and lobbying).
I'm sorry, but I simply don't see the potential loss of potential profit as that big of a deal. Certainly not big enough of a deal that I'd suggest legislation would could harm innocents.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Why is the executive involved at all?
Because the executive wants its Big Media partners to be able to publish the news with the slant that it wants on it, without having people counter that slant in the comments section. If people become required to use their real names in the comments section, then they won't post comments that question the government because future employers will see them as anti-establishment troublemakers.
But how does the executive get us to the point where we accept that people should be required to use their real names, when we have this history of valuing anonymity? First, they have to convince us that speech can be harmful, which it can't. So they say piracy destoys wealth, even though really it creates unprecedented cultural wealth for the people, at no additional cost to the artist, and furthers the artistic cause, even leading to increased financial rewards for the artist as well. And they say terrorists use the network to carry out their plots, even though really they are on suicide missions so they don't need the net in any way at all. And they say that libel and defamation and hate speech are all crimes, even though they no longer carry any of the weight that they used to when journalism was elite. And they say that child pornography harms children because it contributes to the market for it, even though such a market cannot really exist, and the pornography can be assumed to substitute for abuse, rather than lead to it.
Once we are convinced of the lie that speech can be harmful, and so that we need to be able to trace any of it back to its source, then all media can be made to require that posters sign in with their real ID's (either through FB or Google+), through the threat of liability. And while we can be convinced that the MAFIAA won't use DRM to eliminate the public domain, that our government won't censor people, that our police aren't corrupt, in reality the vultures are just waiting for that last window to be locked.
Good comment. Your points 1 and 2 represent the content industry and government colluding to socialize the costs and liabilities of that industry by first having the government expand it's role in the process as you note, and second by forcing the ISP industry to assume costs and liabilities (under penalty of law) on behalf of the content industry which further increases the socialization of content holder costs and liabilities to the ISP, their share holders, insurance providers, and of course, their customers.
This all too comfy situation for content holders would not be possible without bought and paid-for government support behind them.
This is circular logic. If you are the one responsible for creating the laws, are you then allowed to justify arresting people for breaking them "because it's illegal"? You are assuming a fairness which does not exist.
Sorry for the late response but...yes. That is the entire point of creating laws. That's the idea behind us choosing a government to create laws for us. I'm not exactly sure what it is you're trying to say. Using that theory, no laws should exist, and chaos should reign.
My point is lawmakers making laws independent of the wishes of the people, then justifying sustaining the laws against public pressure as "it's the law", essentially arguing that the law is immutable.
Yet Another Tech Blog
(but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
If they make laws independent of the wishes of "the people", then "the people" vote them out, and elect someone else to make the laws. Of course, that also conveniently ignores the fact the lawmakers weren't the ones sitting in on this meeting, so you're talking about two completely different parts of the government.
But the problem is that people will vote primarily based on other issues. When choosing between candidates, there's no option to pick and choose which issues to support -- you would need a multitude of candidates. Instead, people vote based on a few issues that are the most important to them, then grudgingly compromise on issues that are more minor to them, which means that they tend to get screwed over on many issues like this one. It's not an ideal system where people will vote out lawmakers who do things they don't like -- lawmakers can do things they don't like as well as do things they do like and people will vote for them based on the things they like rather than the things they don't. Which means a few issues are strongly favoured democratically, while the rest are left to slide. Since politicians know some issues aren't considered hugely critical, they will largely side with whichever group or individual has lots of money to give, because choosing the populist option probably won't net them any more votes and will lead to a major money supply being cut off.
Yet Another Tech Blog
(but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
Then the problem you seem to be having is the fact voters don't feel the same importance on certain issues that you do. You seem to dislike the fact people have different values, and thus, wish for different things. Obviously, not everyone feels the same as you about copyright infringement. Obviously, many people are against those who break the law and infringe against copyright. Your problem seems to be that not enough people agree with you, the law that is on the books shouldn't be enforced. This a "you" problem, not a "society" problem.
You missed my point entirely. If people care about an issue, but not as much as other issues, then that issue will get neglected because only a handful of issues will be prioritized in politics at any given time. The result is that people who get elected don't get elected based on their stance toward minor issues, only major ones. This is a systemic problem which leads to minor issues (no matter what they are) getting neglected.
Yet Another Tech Blog
(but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
You missed my point entirely. If people care about an issue, but not as much as other issues, then that issue will get neglected because only a handful of issues will be prioritized in politics at any given time. The result is that people who get elected don't get elected based on their stance toward minor issues, only major ones. This is a systemic problem which leads to minor issues (no matter what they are) getting neglected.
I understood your point just fine. My response was appropriate for your comment.