Slashdot Mirror
The Privatization of Copyright Lawmaking
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from TorrentFreak:
"The biggest misperception about [the Stop Online Piracy Act] is that it is somehow unprecedented or extraordinary. It is not. SOPA represents just the latest example of copyright law defined and controlled not by the government but by private entities. Copyright owners will deploy SOPA in the same way they have behaved in the past: to extend out their rights. They will disrupt sites that do not infringe a copyright, interfere with fair uses of copyrighted works, and take other steps that evade the limits that the Copyright Act sets on a copyright owner's actual rights."
And why does the American people still tolerate this again? Surely, in a democracy, every law should be in its people's best interest, no?
In Capitalist US, the commerce controls the Government.
America is totally corrupt. How many of the current US politicians are not taking corporate handouts, accepting meetings with lobbyists, or preaching 'free market' ideology. It has to be accepted that America is a banana republic, run by a mafia of corporate interests, and a collection of crazed religious zealots. I am just so glad I don't live there.
In a democracy, there is a choice of government. Choice is impossible in the United States, because the Republican/Democrat Party, is the only party that can attract enough campaign contributions. The Republican/Democrat Party, is consequently the only party that can buy power. This is not democracy.
The private elite have influenced western politics for at LEAST a century or three
In swedish, SOPA means garbage.
Of my understanding SOPA would make copyright private -aka- legal, unless pursued by the big bad wolf corporations?
Over recent years there has been an accelerating plunge into rule by corporation in its interests rather than rule by government in the interests of all. This has resulted in the loosening of regulation or oversight, laws allow corporations to do things that are effectively disallowed to individuals. The results of this include: the financial woes of recent times; copyright abuse; globalisation for corporation but not individuals (think: they buy where it is cheap in the world, but stop you doing so, eg by region encoding).
This has happened by a variety of means: bribing of law makers (whoops silly me, I mean - donations to campaigns and pet causes, promises of jobs on leaving office, ...); threats to move to another country; ...
Don't get me wrong: not everything about corporations is bad, not all corporations are problematic. A restoration of balance is needed.
The answer is, that the system delivers what most of people consider to be most essential, namely: Bread and circuses. Of course this reasoning preceded the Roman Republic's transformation into the Roman Empire before it's ultimate collapse
Run with the lemmings, and you'll get your feet wet.
It's a matter where the people who have an interest in expanding the power of their copyrights have a lot to gain and therefore are very interested in doing so, while the benefit to the rest of us of keeping those copyright powers restricted is more limited and diffuse.
I mean, what's it worth to you that copyrighted material enter the public domain?
no text
Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
I've got no problem with an individual or an organization that survives by providing a good or service that I value and voluntarily pay for. That's how business is supposed to work.
I've got a huge problem with an individual or an organization that survives by using violence or the threat of violence to take money from me, whether they're providing me some sort of good or service "in return" or not. That's how the state *always* works: a gang of thieves writ large.
Consequently, I have no problems with private sector businesses when they act like businesses. The problem with "big business" isn't that it's big, or that's it's business. The problem is when it gets in bed with the state and uses the state's methods, rather than the market's, to further its ends. The state corrupts everything it touches; the last thing you want to do is get in bed with it.
...Applies to every satellite State of Britain, former and current. The specific section implies the obligation upon Law-abiding citizenry to Lawfully disobey bad Law. This is the only way in which it will get changed. If we sit there and take it up the arse every time our basic civil rights are infringed those who make black-letter Law will carry on until we are deprived of the freedom to make our own choices. That said, it is up to you: will you argue for your rights in a public forum, even if that forum consists of thirteen men and women, even if it means the total loss of liberty for an unspecified period? Will you take that argument to a wider audience, for example by way of media, considering that this action is not without personal risk? Will you risk your life for your freedom as your grandparents did and your great grandparents did (I ask as a Gen. X-er)? Or will you bend over and take it up the arse like a good little sheep?
Lawful Rebellion doesn't mean asking permission to protest. If you have a grievance, make a peaceful and nonviolent show of obstructing a public space and broadcasting your grievance. Let the Corporate Enforcement Officers (AKA Police) make the first violent or unlawful move, and make sure you have the video camera running when they do. And when they do, the Court of Public Opinion shall judge them.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
All lawmaking was privatized long ago.
Read radical news here
The Constitution of the United States of America had a nod to a limited copyright, with the idea that it would promote the arts and sciences for there to be a period of time in which the original creator of an idea would be able to profit from it. (Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, wherein it states as a goal "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;")
Here's an article entitled The Founding Fathers Had Copyright Right, explaining how and why copyright was first introduced (back when the U.S.A. was just a twinkle in the founding fathers' eyes). It bears little resemblance to the convoluted and draconian system we now have in place.
As of 1790, that "limited time" was a period of 14 years, with a possible 14 year extension (assuming the author was still alive), for a possible maximum of 28 years from date of creation. Those periods were more than double those originally specified in earlier documents, which ranged from 5 to 7 years.
More recently, the Copyright Term Extension Act has shoved everything in quite the wrong direction for anything to ever reach the public domain.
For example:
Mickey Mouse was created in 1928. Mickey Mouse's likeness will not be legal to reproduce without a license until 2036, or maybe even 2047 (there is some legalistic ambiguity). And that's assuming that the copyright laws are not changed yet again to suit corporate greed... Because, you know, Disney hasn't had enough time to properly profit from Mickey Mouse yet, since he's only 83 years old!
If that example isn't broken enough for you, have a look at this list of when things enter the public domain, and note that the current copyright law ensures that a book published on 15 March 1923 will enter the public domain on 1 January 2019, despite nearly everyone who was alive when it was published being dead now - nevermind 7 more years. It also shows that a sound recording published in 1978 will enter the public domain no earlier than 2049. If it was recorded prior to 1972, then it won't become public domain until at least 2067. This literally means that music recorded before I was born will not be in the public domain before I die. I expect this holds true for most of us, actually, and not just me. As an aside, this is also why restaurants do not sing "Happy Birthday" with the lyrics and melody you learned growing up.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Copyright law is not about protecting copyright. It's about creating monopolies. Current copyright holders want the ability to take down sites of their competition. All this talk about protecting copyright is just a ruse to get lawmakers to pass their laws.
Don't stop where the ink does.
Italy put a media mogul in charge of the country and look what happened to them. We are basically doing the same thing here in the US. by allowing corporations to write our laws we are going down the path of italy. i fully expect the US to implode within my lifetime.
And put a GPS on them.
The OP's statement:
"They will disrupt sites that do not infringe a copyright, interfere with fair uses of copyrighted works, and take other steps that evade the limits that the Copyright Act sets on a copyright owner's actual rights..."
made me think. One of the threats to someone/entities hoping to make money from copyrighted material is competition from free material. I almost no longer pay for music, for example. Yes, I may want to hear Turkish Freakout, but I can find a lot of similar material for free with a 3 minute search on the internet.
The is led to the following: it is to the benefit of the class of copyright holders to disrupt ANY dissemination of ANY entertainment content except that which they are getting paid for.
...or else how would you explain a 39.62% of popular vote allows you rule with absolute majority?
Seriously. About 45 % of our population are part of the left wing that would appose this (cause it's bad for freedom and such). Another 45% are part of the right wing that support this stuff (cause of property rights and such). That last 10% have no strong opinions whatsoever, they just vote for the guy with the best hair. We call them "Swing Voters". That's why the question "Who would you rather have a beer with" decides the election. Our trouble is elections are being decided by people that vote on "gut feeling" instead of matters of public policy.
I think Gene Wilder said it best: "You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
No, it has to do with most current representations of democracy. The elected representatives do not act in the best interest of the electors, they can and very often will be be corrupted by monied interests. Now, if any elected representative was elected on a contract, that they could be tried by his / her electors at any time after the election, even if retired, and punished if it was found their actions were not in the elector's best interest, that might help. Perhaps with a shooting squad in the background and an occasional execution to give it teeth.
The real problem is politicians are complete sucker fish and so are the American people who elect them.
Whores are embarrassed to be seen with either of them.
The economy is a race with no end. Therefore in a race to cut costs, you are NEVER finished. And how much can you cut costs without loosing service OR doing something drastic.
When one company outsources to get a lower price, to continue in the race everyone else must as well and then who is left locally to afford the product even at the lower costs? Yet many people happily claim you can outsource everything and then the low low low price means people locally don't need jobs. Apparently they believe that the price of a product can truly reach zero. Notice I use price. Not cost. The cost of a iPad is NOT 500 dollars. Yet that is the price, for a piece of tech that doesn't touch US soil until it is in a store being sold to someone with already enough debt.
Americans don't believe so much in the Free Market, they believe that you can cut the cost of anything and get keeping the same quality. In a way, they are like a French noble who tells himself to eat cake after being un-employed for years. (and it works, as ashamed as I am to admit I saw a program on TLC where a woman shopped for a weeks worth of food and payed just 1 penny... you know the economy is screwed up when this can happen, somebody else is paying for this leeches food and guess what, it is you)
The real problem is the media (who in the case of the woman never question how this is supposed to work long term). The entire media is made up by the very rich telling the poor how to think. And the poor swallow it whole. Just look at the followings of Steve Jobs or Bono. Tax dodgers and shady dealers they have the guts to tell others how to think. Why do we care if a few artists living in tax shelters getting money from dictators might loose a few pennies? But without it art would be dead. Yes, if nobody was payed for art anymore the whole of humanity would seize to create it... for THOUSANDS of years this wasn't the case but now it would be. And who is to question this falsehood? The overpayed artists in the media? HAH!
We have left the media become the sole speaker for our society and put them in control of the very rich by making them very rich. It is the job of the media to question the politicians. They do, they question why not more is being done to make them both richer over the backs of people and we let them do it.
When you shoot a politician make sure you get the guy interviewing him at the same time. It is the only way to clean up the system. Of course, you will be villified by the media. Go ahead, try and make the claim that art does NOT need heavy cash infusions to survive.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
So your solution to the worlds issues is to put the blame on factions within a larger group. Why don't you just blame it all on the jews (faction within the judaic faiths) and get it over with.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Believing one man can do nothing leads to one man not doing anything. There are 360 million or so Americans. If all them donated 10 bucks to the EFF per years that would fund the EFF with 3.6 BILLION dollars per year. That hires a LOT of people and most of us van afford more then 10 bucks.
So... how much have you donated?
But your one tenner donation won't make a difference right? So you don't do anything.
People can do a LOT. Vote with your dollars. Don't buy Apple, don't buy Walmart, don't buy from Amazon. But they are so cheap? yes because they don't pay taxes so your state is even more in need of trying to pursuade them with even bigger tax cuts so they can at least get a few of the jobs.
You can't fight the revolution with shinies and discounts. But it is so much easier to just say "I can't do anything" and not do anything.
Trust me... I did pay a small amount to the EFF but hey, that was just a tiny fraction of my income to buy of my guilt. It is so easy being a sheep. BAAAAAH
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
In other words we who don't own a "..., ltd" front-end company through which we would interact with world are second-rate citizens from the very start. I wonder how such system could be perverted against itself for purpose of subversion, in spirit of GPL and Pastafarianism?
And i think the news poster is under the misconception that misperception is a word...
Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble
A corporation is the assembly of a number of people, called "shareholders", who have a certain common interest. The rights of a corporation are the rights of its owners.
Corporations are treated as persons in some respects because they have duties and obligations. If corporations didn't have those characteristics how would you enforce contracts? Who would you sue when you bought a car with a defective design?
Corporations have so much political strength not because they are rich, but because they really care about the issues they lobby for and against. For a media corporation, for instance, a certain detail about copyright law could mean the difference between profit or bankruptcy, for you it means paying a few bucks more to watch a film or listen to a song.
The only way to reduce the power corporations have in politics is to deregulate as much as possible. The more you regulate everything the more power you give to corporations
I personally do not recognize any corporate authorities. No DCMA orders or cease and desist, etc. etc. If it comes from anything other than a Bonified court order, issued by a bonified seated judge, then it does not exist.
And at the end of the day, I dont care if the final result is legal or not.
Laws get changed when the right people (corporations) scream loudly enough. If you really believe that 'big corporations' can send out false DMCA takedown notices without a meaningful penalty, then the solution is simple. Send them your own. If the penalty is all that light then it won't bother you. This is obviously not legal advice, a recommendation, or a call to action.
I am a lawyer, but not yours. Anything I tell you might be a total lie intended to benefit my clients at your expense.
Hmmmm...
Privatizing brings in Privateers carrying Letters of Marque (unless someone patents the process) to enforce rules or even laws...
(shakes head)
-soup (GNUrd, Speaker to Machines) "Laugh at yourself- Why should everyone else have all the fun?" -Romanchek's 6th Ru
Corporations have so much political strength not because they are rich, but because they really care about the issues they lobby for and against.
Bullshit, do you think an auto mechanic could get an appointment with his US Senator? A CEO can, because his corporation has funded the politician. Your vote is pretty meaningless, the corporate dollars to buy that vote are what matter.
As to regulation, there can be too much, too little, or just bad regulating. Cowtowing to corporate interests and writing regs that help them screw you and their competetion over is bad regulation.
Do you have any idea how much you'd pay for electricity if the power companies weren't regulated? In a monopolistic industry, heavy regulation is necessary.
The recent financial meltdown was a result of deregulation (Glass-Stegall repealed). The problem is when an industry writes its own regs, like Hollywood writing copyright law (or Wall Street getting Glass-Stegal repealed).
Free Martian Whores!
I'm not being clueless, I'm doing the best with my limited options.
I'd bet a fair day's pay that Al Gore wouldn't have made QUITE this mess out of the Terrorist meme. He didn't have Daddy's history of Iraq, and I think he'd have gotten the right *country* sooner than a *decade*. (Pakistan ??!!!) (Notice all it all hushed up pretty good since then?)
I'll admit I didn't expect Obama to be this fast on the RIAA scene, but did we really want Sarah Palin anywhere near the White House? It was a total flashback to the Quayle jokes, and McCain is no spring chicken.
So it's not great but there is a choice between Utter Disaster and Oh Dear Gawd.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I realize I'm in the minority here, but I guarantee you I know half a dozen auto mechanics that have been, and will always be able to get appointments with their US Senator. Admittedly, I live in Alaska, and Ralph Seekins was a senator here. He also owns the Ford dealership in town.
Nitpicking aside, if you *can't* get an appointment with your Senator, you have a problem. Try it - go down to their office and request an appointment. Their whole job is to speak on your behalf. Of course, you could try emailing them as well - you'll probably get a canned response (heck, even showing up in person you'll likely get a canned response, but you could always ask for the basis of that response). Seriously, just because it's canned doesn't mean it's artificial -- it's likely just an often-answered question.
---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
I wrote the late President Nixon, was replied to by some general who simply thanked me for my service to my country (I was in the Air Force then). I Wrote the late Senator Simon and got a polite, noncommital reply that he disagreed with my position. The only politicians who have really answered any mail are state legislators and city government officials.
But I guarantee you that if you drop $100k in any politician's re-election coffers, you'll have far more than mere "access".
Free Martian Whores!
do you think an auto mechanic could get an appointment with his US Senator?
Absolutely, yes! You would get one if you tried. If you were to arrive at your senator's office in Washington and there were a lobbyist there with a check for $10k who do you think your senator would see first? You.
All marketeers know that word of mouth is the best advertisement. Imagine you were choosing a new car to buy, would you trust more the advertisements or the opinion of someone you knew who had one? Your senator knows that any voter who is motivated enough to travel all the way to DC to meet him is an active member of his community and will bring more votes than a lot of advertising.
The recent financial meltdown was a result of deregulation (Glass-Stegall repealed).
No, it was a result of regulations to avoid discrimination by banks against people living in low-income neighborhoods. In a free market the junk mortgage bubble would have never happened.
The problem is when an industry writes its own regs
Which is always. When there's a commission in Congress to write a regulation, are you there? No, because you do not have time to be in Washington all the time. Lobbyists are paid to be there.
Your argument about advertising isn't true, because people do not sell their votes to advertisers like that. You don't sell your vote, why do you think other people would? But regulations are a different matter.
It's not a question of buying votes, the trick is to be there when the details are written into the regulation. No matter who is elected, the people in Congress have too many issues to know intimately every detail. When it comes to cross the t's and dot the i's there will be a corporation lobbyist there to "help".
And the more regulations there are, the more "help" your congressman will need.