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.'"

40 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. No Surprise Here by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Many government officials go on to become lobbyists. She's just laying the ground work for her next (and much better paying) job.

    1. Re:No Surprise Here by nicholas22 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Change you can believe in right? I'm not a republican, or even American. But it's business as usual in Washington DC.

    2. Re:No Surprise Here by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      From now on I'll keep in mind that any politician's slogan is likely to turn into a punch line.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:No Surprise Here by jandrese · · Score: 2

      It's worse than that. Which industries are most interested in Copyright issues? The media? That's great, now who gets to decide which stores are going to get full blown 24 hours news coverage, and which are going to slip under the radar? This is why copyright reform is doomed, politicians need the media, and the media companies have only a few simple demands for them, guess what they are.

      With newspapers dying out, it seems the only hope for independent journalism is the internet, but good luck getting anybody to take the internet seriously.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    4. Re:No Surprise Here by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Change you can believe in right? I'm not a republican...

      There's a tendency for people who visit slashdot to oversimplify and equate Democrat=good and Republican=evil. The truth is much more complex. In particular, The movie, TV, and record industry has always been squarely behind Democrats, and the publishing industry shifted that way during the Bush years (scroll down to the Party Split graphs).

      This isn't a Democrat administration doing something with a copyright issue which you'd never expect, something you'd only expect from a Republican administration. It's a Democrat administration doing exactly what you'd expect it to do with a copyright issue. If you voted for Obama expecting him to side with the people instead of copyright holders, you need to do a better job researching political contributions next time. We have wonderful tools now which make it dirt simple compared to 15 years ago when we had to have it spoon-fed to us by the media, and you're remiss not to take advantage of them.

      Personally I think it was the right choice - banking and finance reform was more important. But I knew it would mean copyright would shift the "wrong" way (in favor of content producers).

  2. Sadly.. by swinferno · · Score: 2

    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
    1. Re:Sadly.. by marcroelofs · · Score: 3

      That's why the Wikileaks cables were so important; they showed us that the US embassies around the world spend 75% of their energy in brokering for US big corp, instead of representing the people that pay their salaries.

  3. This Administration by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."
  4. Corruption at the highest level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And people wonder why we are currently protesting in the streets over corporate greed and its manipulation of our nation's ideals?

    1. Re:Corruption at the highest level by denis-The-menace · · Score: 2

      GREED:
      Governments and Rich people Exploiting Everyone to Death

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    2. Re:Corruption at the highest level by capnkr · · Score: 2

      And people wonder why we are currently protesting in the streets over corporate greed and its manipulation of our nation's ideals, while steadfastly refusing to admit to ourselves that our man Obama is nothing more than a puppet perpetuating the very things we think are wrong in the system, or that his administration is just as bad as the one which went before. So we have a plan to Change things by holding signs which speak out against the actions of Obama's principal campaign donors, and getting the MM to show us at 5 and 11, in the Hope that maybe just maybe he will finally do those things he promised us he would do, but until now has just lied about. Think it will work?

      There, FTFY.

      --
      "...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
    3. Re:Corruption at the highest level by Nickodeimus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ask the Egyptians. I believe the fall of their government this year was presaged by the 99% standing in a square in their capital city for weeks.

  5. This is Fucked by milbournosphere · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:This is Fucked by tekrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're assuming that "we" can enact legislation. "We" cannot. We can only elect representatives that "we" hope will represent our interests.

      But that's not the way it works anymore. Those guys that make legislation only seem to represent big corporate interests, because that's who's funding their re-election campaigns. Then they use that money to make TV commercials that lie to us, telling us to vote for him so he can represent us. Then, when we stupidly elect him, he goes and screws us, and enacts legislation for the interests that really got him re-elected, which is big money.

      So "we" really have no voice in government at all. "We" cannot enact legislation, "we" are only subjects to the king and queen -- i.e. big companies.

      --
      If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    2. Re:This is Fucked by Freddybear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When? Never. The foxes will never vote themselves out of the job of guarding the chicken coop.

    3. Re:This is Fucked by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Money's not the only way to get on the ballot; at least, not in my district (I don't know the exact figure at the moment, but I think it only takes 3000 signatures to be placed on the ballot here). As a matter of fact, I intend to run against our incumbent with a campaign budget of approximately Zero; I plan on using public channels, such as NPR and the internet, to publicize my efforts.

      I just won't be able to run any smear ads, which I have no intention of doing anyway. The way I see it, candidates should be elected based on their own platform and record, not the smack they talk on their opponents.

      Just think, what would happen if droves of ordinary Americans started challenging these career criminals for their cushy positions of power?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  6. I guess I'm not fully understanding the problem. by Slyfox696 · · Score: 2

    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?

  7. Well duh by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Well duh by HerculesMO · · Score: 2

      It is a chick, not a dude. Just FYI.

      --
      The price is always right if someone else is paying.
    2. Re:Well duh by Rehnberg · · Score: 2

      It's the internet. Everyone is a man.

    3. Re:Well duh by houghi · · Score: 2

      The public could protest, but they get their daily doses of fast food and tv

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  8. Re:Sooooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  9. #occupyhollywood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Time to expand the #occupy movement to Hollywood (actually, the RIAA and MPAA HQs are in Washington DC).

  10. Re:Editor Fail by Slyfox696 · · Score: 2

    Like, who the hell is Soghoian? That'd be something to establish in your blurb.

    "According to emails obtained via a Freedom of Information request....Soghoian said when asked why he sought the documents." Just a shot in the dark, but I'm going to guess he's the one who sought the documents. Could be wrong though...

  11. I'm SHOCKED! by mrquagmire · · Score: 2

    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
  12. Re:Sooooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:Sooooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  14. Obama Administration by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 2

    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."
  15. Re:I guess I'm not fully understanding the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

  16. Why no one complains about Czars by Belial6 · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Why no one complains about Czars by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2

      Because it's just a bullshit Republican talking point? The so-called "Czars" are just nicknames for positions with long, tongue-tying titles. We've been using the term since the days of Nixon. It's only when the GOP decided they sooner burn down the country than let someone else lead it that they decided to start a fuss about the nicknames.

      Not true at all. These unelected, unconfirmed, czars are being given unconstitutional powers never seen in any previous administration either Republican or Democratic.

      --
      "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  17. Re:I guess I'm not fully understanding the problem by c0d3g33k · · Score: 2

    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.

  18. Re:Sooooo by spazdor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!
  19. Re:Sooooo by capnkr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  20. PS... by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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."
  21. Re:Sooooo by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".

  22. Re:I guess I'm not fully understanding the problem by Nickodeimus · · Score: 2

    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.

  23. No a surprise by andydread · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  24. This tarnishes the dignity of his royal personage by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  25. Re:Sooooo by cdrguru · · Score: 2

    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.