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.'"
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.
Well, we went from 8 years of "I can't believe this shit!" to "Change we could believe in." in much the same way like we believe in the tooth fairy or that hard work leads to wealth.
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.
Well you can continue to slack off. So the rest of us can get your job.
Hard work is part of the path that leads to wealth. But there isn't one simple rule for wealth. Hard Work is part of it, and an important part.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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
How's that hope and change working out for you?
Its the political system to be rotten. Whoever you elect won't make a damn difference, not with the current system in place.
Want to change things ?
Make it illegal for corporations to "donate" money to political parties.
Make it illegal for campaign contributions.
Define a mechanism whereby political parties are financed by public money (fixed amount of money, so no more campaigns that cost billions of $).
Make it so that political parties all have equal visibility on public tv.
Strip the whole "personhood" thing from corporations.
If this doesn't work, guess its time to pick up your winchesters and pitchforks and burn down the white house and the capitol again.
It's become quite clear int he last few decades that privilege has much more to do with wealth than hard work. Hard work may secure you a living on the upper end of the middle class. A class that is rapidly getting less and less of the pie due to the actions of the privileged.
Hard work gets you a job with absolutely no security. Hard work gets you raises, which makes you a target for downsize because you make too much.
Privilege gets you a job running a few companies in to the ground, then later on a governorship and a two term presidency.
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!
create room for one that might actually look out for us.
Here's an idea:
Why not choose to look out for *yourself*, instead of sloughing off that responsibility onto others - whether it be individuals, or the government?
Sure, it ain't easy, but give it a shot, and you'll find that you have some self-respect afterwards, and gained some self-worth in the process. Creating a nanny state is *not* the answer.
"...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
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.
Heritage is a more important part of it. Especially cash heritage.
Hope and Change turned out to be a whole bunch of sitting around and not getting much done.
Since the previous situation was getting a fuck of a lot done but none of it any good , we can say that "Hope and Change" worked out just fine.
zero is greater than negative numbers, after all.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
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.
And you are happy settling for that. Right?
I'm not.
"...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
"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."
Are you insane? How do you propose to look out for yourself against the whims of corporations if not through the government? If some banker decides to just straight up take all of your retirement savings for himself, what are you gonna do? If your insurance company decides that, after years of collecting premiums, they don't feel like paying out benefits when you're in trouble, what are you gonna do?
The Merciful God of the Market is a lie. Market forces won't stop $MEGACORP from screwing you over. You need to band together with your neighbors to defend yourself. And when you do, that is called "government".
It's a start. First cease to do evil, then endeavour to do good. We can't walk and crawl at the same time.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
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."
Wow, did you time travel here from the 60s? Next you'll be calling someone a pinko.
Socialism is not communism, and even the current Democrat Party is not as far to the left as it has been in the past.
I should clarify. When I pointed out that people elected Obama as a failed attempt to act in their own best interest, I didn't mean to suggest that the other guy would have been a better choice.
To put it in a more current context, I think it's fair to say that either Obama or Perry would willingly hold you by the ankles and feed you head-first through a wood chipper if they thought it would guarantee them the presidency (and knew they wouldn't be caught).
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.
Boy, you must have REALLY been against the PATRIOT ACT.
Hope and Change turned out to be a whole bunch of sitting around and not getting much done.
It seems like a lot got done... if you were a contributor, like Solyndra.
...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 know what, I agree with this. The GOP is filled with right wing nuts and the Democrats have become the party of everyone.
If today's "liberals" were running the show in the 60's/70's we would still have a segregated society and been happily burning through an extra 10 years in Vietnam.
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.
Market forces didn't create $MEGACORP. Guess who did.
Sadly, the government hasn't done anything to stop any abuses of late.
There are only a few ways to deal with the problem if you are made into a victim:
- You can decide to be a victim and hope someone else fixes things for you.
- You can get a rifle and stop being a victim.
There are no other alternatives available today. The government is not going to tell an insurance company they have to cover you. They may create a rule that says in order for the insurance company to not cover you they must do A, B and C, which they will cheerfully do. Your recourse is, what? Sue the government? Sorry, the company followed all the rules laid down for such companies.
So far we have had way too much of alternative A and way, way too little of alternative B. In the early 1800s if someone was cheated the cheater usually ended up dead. In the early 1900s the cheater and cheated both hired lawyers and the lawyers got rich, while the cheated ended up still cheated. Today, only the cheater can afford a real lawyer but still the lawyer gets rich and the cheated stays cheated.
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.
Only 63% of House Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while 80% of House Republicans voted for it. In the Senate things werent much better for the Democrats, as only 69% voted for the Civil Rights Act while 82% of Republicans voted for it.
Did your liberal brainwashing in school forget to tell you that it was the Democrats that tied up the floors for 83 days in a record-setting filibuster attempting to stop the Civil Rights Act?
You think that todays liberals might try to stop the civil rights act? Fuck dude.. it was yesterdays liberals that did try to stop it.
"His name was James Damore."
"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.
Well you can continue to slack off. So the rest of us can get your job. Hard work is part of the path that leads to wealth. But there isn't one simple rule for wealth. Hard Work is part of it, and an important part.
Typical bought-dog. Some people work hard and some people work smart. The smartest work the hardest in the smartest fashion possible.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Only 63% of House Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while 80% of House Republicans voted for it. In the Senate things werent much better for the Democrats, as only 69% voted for the Civil Rights Act while 82% of Republicans voted for it. Did your liberal brainwashing in school forget to tell you that it was the Democrats that tied up the floors for 83 days in a record-setting filibuster attempting to stop the Civil Rights Act? You think that todays liberals might try to stop the civil rights act? Fuck dude.. it was yesterdays liberals that did try to stop it.
You're wrong, and obviously a Glenn Beck "make shit up" acolyte. Those Democrats who tried to block the Civil Rights Act were the Dixiecrats, the same Southern traders in bigotry and ignorance that pollute politics to this day. They became Republicans after the CRA fight. Yes, children, that was when Strom Thurmond was a Democrat. No really. The final tally shows strong Democratic party support: Senate vote: Democrats: 46-21 (69%–31%) Republicans: 27-6 (82%–18%) House vote: Democratics: 153-91 (63%–37%) Republicans: 136-35 (80%–20%)
Except that if you try option B you'll more than likely be stopped before you can actually off any of the big cheats and whether or not succeed do the best thing you can hope for is to die in a hail of gunfire when the police come to get you (or to just swallow the barrel of your own gun) 'cause if they get hold of you you're about to get stuffed into an overcrowded prison where the guards will beat your ass and your cellmate bubba will make you his new lady...
Did you perchance hear a whooshing noise as you were clicking submit? It was the sound of his humor going over your head...
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
It should be noted, artor3, that our Federal Government is primarily responsible for creating a rift of favoritism between large corporations and small/medium businesses. "We The People" in government are constantly being bought off. Let me rephrase that for you. Our own citizens (politicians) are the one stabbing us in the collective back. What amazes me how so many people get all revved up over the rift between the rich and poor. Sure, the problem exists. At least more so than in the past 40 years. But the real underlying issue is the great rift between $MEGACORP and you're local SMB company. Why isn't anyone talking about that? I want the small company I work for to become wealthy too. But the market is weighted to favor the big dogs thanks to the rampant corruption in Washington.
Life is not for the lazy.
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!
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!
Those Democrats who tried to block the Civil Rights Act were the Dixiecrats, the same Southern traders in bigotry and ignorance that pollute politics to this day. They became Republicans after the CRA fight.
Brainwashing has also misinformed you that a significant number of CRA-opposition in the Democrat party joined the Republican party. Byrd, Gore (Senior), Fulbright.. the leaders of the Democrat filibuster of the CRA, did not join the Republican party after the CRA was passed, and in fact they never joined the Republican party.
You are speaking from the perspective of revisionists that want you to believe something that isnt true. In the 60's the claims that the Republicans were the racists were laughed at. In the 70's those same claims started to be believed by the younger generations. In the 90's it was "well known." and now post 2000 its taken for granted.
If it was a lie in the 60's then its still a lie today, regardless of how many years the Democrat-dominated system has thumped falsehoods about the 60's into children. You are one of those children.
"His name was James Damore."
How many of those Democrats stayed with the party after the passage of the civil rights act? Look at the electoral map of the 1960 election. The entire west coast went for Nixon. Georgia, Texas, and the Carolinas went for Kennedy. By 1968 many of the states that had been solidly Democratic had turned on that party because of that vote. In fact the "Solid South" wasn't part of the Democratic party because of some deep liberalism, but rather anger over reconstruction. Once those sneaky liberals actually pushed a bill for civil rights they fled to a party more willing to embrace them.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
Well, except for wasting 3 times as much money and being directly responsible, all by his lonesome with no input from Congress, for the deaths of 3 Americans and 200 Mexicans and committing what was in fact an act of war against Mexico.
Arguably, you could just shoot anyone that wrongs you. It solves a bunch of problems. A) people stop wronging you, or at least pay dearly for it, B) population control, C) world hunger will be solved over night.
Some day the have nots are going to start taking what they want from the haves. It's just a question of when and how.
Now, with protests? Or later, with guns?
Do you know anything about history at all? When the party was first created the Democrats were the conservative party. Over time they slowly ended up switching roles with the republicans a process that solidified starting with the new deal with the death knell for the conservative, southern wing of the party being the passage of the CRA. The republican party started taking on a more and more conservative tone, especially once Reagan pulled in the Ultra Religious set.
I don't think the Democrats have been an effective liberal force in years but ignoring the split between the Yellow Dog Dems and the main body of the party is just retarded...
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.