Slashdot Mirror


Stop Being Poor: U.S. Piracy Watch List Hits a New Low With 2012 Report

An anonymous reader writes "The U.S. Trade Representative released its annual Special 301 Report yesterday, unsurprisingly including Canada on the Priority Watch list. While inclusion on the list is designed to generate embarrassment on target countries, Michael Geist explains why this year's report should elicit outrage. Not only is the report lacking in objective analysis, it targets some of the world's poorest countries with no evidence of legal inadequacies and picks fights with any country that dare adopt a contrary view on intellectual property issues."

310 comments

  1. US, nobody gives a shit by Kajas · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I live in Asia. Our entertainment is going out with people and socializing. We like that. Live music is better than listening to some stupid pop artists from your cd's. Bands at the restaurants and bars occasionally play covers of those over here, but you are a failing country that is both anti-social and has no understanding of what products are actually worth to pay for. You are fighting a fight that you cannot win.

    1. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Zibodiz · · Score: 2

      So, the answer to our piracy and IP idiocy is to abolish recordings and limit ourselves to live performances?
      FYI, performing a cover of a pop song for free at a concert is not an issue here either.

    2. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by PPH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We can't do that here in the USA. They keep the noise^H^H^H^H^Hmusic in bars cranked up so loud you can't carry on a conversation. Not just bars. Even the local Starbucks plays their Muzak far too loud to talk quietly, or even read without being distracted.

      But then if they turned down the music, you'd realize how little people actually have to say.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Kajas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe the answer is to rethink what is good entertainment. I've always had much better time when spending time out with friends or family while there might be some band playing. It doesn't even matter that much who they are. I do understand that it might matter more when staying alone at home and trying to listen to some music, but seriously, just go out and enjoy it with other people - it's much better.

    4. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by TWX · · Score: 4, Funny

      But then if they turned down the music, you'd realize how little people actually have to say.

      Sounds like it's time to build the B Ark. We just have to make sure that we sanitize our own telephones.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Insightful
      ,p>While I don't really disagree with the last statement you make to assert that America's don't have live music or don't prefer it to CDs by some pop artist is silly.

      What you're seeing here really is more of a disconnect between the Government and the people it is suppose to represent. The american government at this point is pretty much entirely owned by various corporations and private interests that don't represent the thoughts and will of the american people.

      I'm pretty fed up with it and I want things to change but I really don't see what I can do, the FBI is busy trying to turn people into terrorists who are unhappy with the way the government is representing them. It doesn't matter if I vote for the right or left any politician I vote for is owned by someone, and most if not all the third party candidates are dubious or likely to be subverted the moment they become any more than 'third party' and or get seen as a threat to the status quo.

    6. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wow way to generalize about 3 billion people in ways that are entirely incorrect for a vast amount of them.

    7. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by InvisibleClergy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The point is that when people are listening to CDs or MP3s, they're not JUST listening to them. They're cleaning, playing video games, exercising, driving, or any one of a multitude of activities which don't require 100% of your ears. Hell, I've listened to music while working at a call center before. 99% of situations in which people would have music are not situations in which live music is applicable.

      tl;dr: You trollin'.

    8. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by crazyjj · · Score: 2

      No offense, but every Asian country I've ever been to was loaded with CD's and DVD's of popular music and movies. Some, like China, were filled with mostly *bootleg* CD's and DVD's too (not that I can fault them for that, since so much is officially banned there). Just because you don't buy them (and will no doubt tell us all at great length why you don't even *OWN* a TV), doesn't mean that pop culture is somehow a plague solely limited to the U.S.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    9. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Hatta · · Score: 5, Funny

      I live in Asia. Our entertainment is going out with people and socializing.

      That sounds too much like socialism for the US.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    10. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Desler · · Score: 2

      So if 'Asians' only go out and listen to live bands as their entertainment why are CD and DVD so huge in Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, etc.? Also, how do you explain away the vast amount of CD and DVD bootlegging in the region? Oh and lets not forget the more than a billion 'asians' who live in rural areas without the entertainment you list. Basically, you're full of it.

    11. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like a joy to be around. Cranky AND misanthropic! What a combo!

    12. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 1

      Its pretty naive to think all americans only like the pop artists listened to on cd's, there's quite the local and social scene I'd imagine in just about every major city similar to how it is in my city on the east coast. Sounds like someone's been fed some BS propaganda.

    13. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2

      Our entertainment is going out with people and socializing. We like that. Live music is better than listening to some stupid pop artists from your cd's. Bands at the restaurants and bars occasionally play covers of those over here, but you are a failing country that is both anti-social and has no understanding of what products are actually worth to pay for.

      Ah, I see. This explains why there is so little piracy going on in Asian countries.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    14. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by ooshna · · Score: 1

      The US used to have live musicians at every club, a lot of restaurants, and anywhere else people congregate but once places could replace a live band they had to pay every night with a record they only had to pay for once that started disappearing.

    15. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by letherial · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Claiming one country should forgo their culture because you said yours is better is not a very good argument. Maybe some people dont want to go out and prefer to stay home and listen to music, is there is something wrong with that? while i am not bashing your culture, i think its great if you have more community based entertainment...but USA is different for a variety of reasons and it would be easier to change the record companys then it would be to change an entire culture.

      Its funny, most the time its Americans are being accused of the very same thing your doing.

    16. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by PPH · · Score: 2

      Stay off my lawn, kid!

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    17. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Desler · · Score: 1

      Yes and we all know that pop music is completely absent from Japan, China, South Korea, etc.

    18. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Informative

      >>>performing a cover of a pop song for free at a concert is not an issue here either.

      Yeah actually it is.
      Public performance of copyrighted works, even legal recordings, is forbidden in the U.S. and the RIAA expects other countries to have similar laws.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    19. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong.

      Every non-American has their own personal philharmonic that follows them wherever they go, playing Mozart. Every American listens to Rebecca Black 24/7 on WMA's @ 32 kbs, as Brittney Spears is too refined for them.

    20. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by royallthefourth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm pretty fed up with it and I want things to change but I really don't see what I can do

      Organize.

      There are probably people near you who are organizing political events that work for real people rather than the powers that be. Seek them out.

    21. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Desler · · Score: 2

      This person's statements are total bunk. Pop music is very popular in a number of Asian countries and CD and DVD sales are huge too.

    22. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, the answer is to let go of the budget lunacy around art. Culture will not suddenly die if you abolish copyright.

    23. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      I live in Asia. Our entertainment is going out with people and socializing. We like that. Live music is better than listening to some stupid pop artists from your cd's.

      That's interesting, since Japanese and South Koreans consume recorded music the way Slashdot users consumer cheesy-poofs.

      I don't know where in Asia you live, but the music industry sells lots of product there.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    24. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah - I live in Turkey, too. But I do not mind the occasional CD when at home.

    25. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure if Trolling or just stupid.

    26. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that word means what you think is means.

    27. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2

      I live in Asia.

      Well that narrows it down.

      Our entertainment is going out with people and socializing.

      Yeah, no one in the USA *ever* does that.

      We like that.

      Well bully for you!

      Live music is better than listening to some stupid pop artists from your cd's.

      http://us14.memecdn.com/Stop-Liking-What-I-Dont-Like_c_115105.jpg

      In your opinion, of course, and there are CDs containing other things than pop music, just FYI. I just found a CD of 60s cartoon music and sound effects. I like to crack up the Speed Racer theme during traffic jams to totally mess with the other commuters.

      Bands at the restaurants and bars occasionally play covers of those over here,

      WOW!!!! o.O The NEVER happens here. Our bands just play scales and basic fingering exercises, or they go off into multihour free form jazz odysseys. Depends on how baked they are.

      but you are a failing country

      Ah, I wondered when the full bore jingobigotry would show up. I made that neologism up, BTW. Feel free to use it. Hmm. Bingotry?

      that is both anti-social and has no understanding of what products are actually worth to pay for.

      Nonsense. We so totally understand what products are actually worth to pay for what we see was worth to understand paying for what products.

      You are fighting a fight that you cannot win.

      Wait, which one you talkin' about?

    28. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Many are returning to that after the past few years of ASCAP/BMI sending out goons to fine bars and restaurants for daring to play the radio in their establishment. There are two bars I frequent that have evicted any jukebox or DJ and have live entertainment most of the time. It's a single guy with a guitar most of the time or a duo, but that is far better than recorded music.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    29. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by LeadSongDog · · Score: 2

      That sounds too much like socialism

      Well, hell, it is May Day!

      --
      Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
    30. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      Live music is better than listening to some stupid pop artists from your cd's.

      I know, right? I just wonder why they don't ever put other types of music on CD. Seems like an untapped market.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    31. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by yahwotqa · · Score: 1

      The claim that it is easier to change record companys (sic!) than the culture is divorced from reality. Those companies haven't evolved since the 80s and seem to be fighting any change with everything they have, while US culture _is_ evolving (even though their mainstream media is making it hard).

    32. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      | What you're seeing here really is more of a disconnect between the Government and the people it is suppose to represent

      Umm, you and I aren't the American people. We' don't have the money. We don't count. Real American people number less than 1 million, out of the 300 million inhabitants of America. The rest of us live in 'Murica, are a nuisance to real Americans, and are expendable.

    33. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      How do you figure? I've never seen nor heard of any band getting sued for performing a cover of any song.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    34. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

      We can't do that here in the USA. They keep the noise^H^H^H^H^Hmusic in bars cranked up so loud you can't carry on a conversation. Not just bars. Even the local Starbucks plays their Muzak far too loud to talk quietly, or even read without being distracted.

      But then if they turned down the music, you'd realize how little people actually have to say.

      And those rotten kids are riding their bicycles over my lawn! If they weren't on my lawn, they might be good for something!

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    35. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by neurophil12 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm pretty fed up with it and I want things to change but I really don't see what I can do, the FBI is busy trying to turn people into terrorists who are unhappy with the way the government is representing them. It doesn't matter if I vote for the right or left any politician I vote for is owned by someone, and most if not all the third party candidates are dubious or likely to be subverted the moment they become any more than 'third party' and or get seen as a threat to the status quo.

      My favored solution is for grassroots organizations to stop banging their heads against the wall on issues that aren't going anywhere under the current system and focus on electoral reforms. 1) End political redistricting. 2) Enact some sort of acceptability voting (e.g. instant run-off), starting with local and state elections and building support for federal elections. 3) Enact campaign finance reforms of some sort (the biggest and most challenging issue, though one in which there are many avenues along which to make advances).

      I could add more (like somehow modifying the primary system, rotating which states vote first in presidential primaries, media ownership reforms), but those 3 I think deal with the bulk of what's preventing progress in terms of true representation of the people and resistance to corporate special interests. (1) reduces individual power consolidation and polarization, (2) reduces party power consolidation, polarization, and provides an opportunity for the public to express their preferences in more dimensions (this might make it easier to push back against the advancing security state), and (3) reduces the power of wealthy donors and corporations (who aren't people), or in the case of greater transparency at least allows us to know who is spending how much on what/whom.

    36. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

      So if 'Asians' only go out and listen to live bands as their entertainment why are CD and DVD so huge in Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, etc.? Also, how do you explain away the vast amount of CD and DVD bootlegging in the region?

      Officially, it doesn't exist. The asian government says there's no bootlegging, so there's no bootlegging.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    37. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by filthpickle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yep...of course, depending on who it is performing it you may have a hard time finding anyone that cares. But here's how it works, and it will blow your mind if you don't already know. http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-licensing.htm

    38. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Dyinobal · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ya but getting senators, and representatives to put fourth such bills and then keeping them intact and getting them approved is impossible given how consolidated and powerful the corporations have become with regards to their control over elections.

    39. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by AngryDeuce · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't think that post means what you think it WOOOOOOOOOOSH...

    40. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      >>>performing a cover of a pop song for free at a concert is not an issue here either.

      Yeah actually it is. Public performance of copyrighted works, even legal recordings, is forbidden in the U.S. and the RIAA expects other countries to have similar laws.

      The scenario, as put forth by the GP, is an issue for ASCAP and/or its international equivalents, not RIAA here.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    41. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by LingNoi · · Score: 4, Informative

      Indeed, I'm normally the first in line to accuse Americans of doing this but this guy is just being an asshole.

      He's also wrong. I also live in Asia and plenty of people pirate, play video games, and do all the things that the west does. GP is talking complete nonsense.

    42. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Rasperin · · Score: 2

      What you like doesn't apply to everyone. I prefer to listen to music at home at a level appropriate for the situation. I hate going out with friends to restaurants/bars with live music because you cannot hear your companions (unless it's soft jazz). Another thing to keep in mind is that Americans are becoming far more isolated single islands every day. In person contact is becoming antiquated and online communication is preferred. I honestly believe the educational community is the reason for this, and this also may be my limited view but I'm watching my younger sisters generation and watching as they spend every day inside on facebook (these are popular girls not programmers). However anecdotal I've read a lot of reports stating similar information and for awhile was part of the concerning causes to the economic crisis (stagnated restaurant visits, then a downfall once the economy dipped).

      --
      WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
    43. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Zemran · · Score: 2

      I live in Asia, it is not one country or one culture. Pakistan is a world apart from Japan. I Kazakhstan you are not even going to find a shop selling legit DVDs whereas in Japan you would not find a shop, openly, selling bootleg DVDs. I download shedloads. I also go out to watch live music and do lots of other stuff. Asia is a great place, much better than America, but it is not one place and the great thing is the diversity.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    44. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by OnlineAlias · · Score: 2, Informative

      You haven't looked hard enough. http://www.entertainmentlawmatters.com/?p=1666

    45. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      "I'm pretty fed up with it and I want things to change but I really don't see what I can do"

      If corporate money influencing the political system is the problem, then the solution is relatively simple: ban corporate and organizational political donations entirely.

      Other democratic countries have done it. It's not a panacea, obviously, but you aren't going to get far on other issues without solving that one first.

    46. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by SilentStaid · · Score: 0

      Asia is a great place, much better than America, but it is not one place and the great thing is the diversity.

      And here I always thought the great thing was the modesty, low UIDs and objective viewpoints! Gosh golly boy howdy was I wrong.

    47. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at least you noticed when the joke went two levels above your head, grats!

    48. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

      I'd love to know what Asian country you live in because they do everything Americans do. You either haven't lived there long enough or you led a sad life in the States. That's the only reason I can see for you to hold such delusions.

      People in Asia go just as insane over pop stars as they do in the States. I'd say half of Asian celebrities are fundamentally no different than Kim Kardasian in that they have no appreciable talent but manage to continue to be successful. There are plenty of nobodies who become popular by virtue of being wealthy and befriending celebrities. If Asians didn't eat up that kind of shit these people would never get famous.

      And pirating is extremely rampant; it's even prevalent in Japan. They've tried to combat pirating in some novel ways, like offering music CDs with collectables. Not that it helps, because pirating isn't only rampant, it's pretty much institutionalized. And they've gotten so good that people who thought they were getting a great deal on the real thing later realized they were being duped.

      Nearly every smaller company I dealt with, and some bigger ones too, was running pirated software. A lot of companies would buy one legitimate copy and then get pirated copies for everyone else.

      It bothered me from the perspective that it was all money going right in the pockets of gangsters. At least when people were actually going out to buy pirated music or software. And there were those who really overdid it, for some it's all they bought.

      I'm not saying I have a fundamental problem with piracy. Software, for example, was outrageously expensive. Adobe software was far more expensive than it was in the States. So we found ourselves buying through people in the US. But even if they were charging US prices there was still buying power to consider. A lot of smaller companies couldn't afford to drop $5k on a handful of licenses. It's outrageous what these companies charge even in the US.

      Music is a bit of a different issue for me in that it's neither a necessity nor is it particular expensive. Most popular music is junk, but it evidently still appeals to your average consumer. So I think in that case people are avoiding paying for the content simply because it's so easy to acquire it for free.

      I do like how the US government is happy to help screw the third world. What does it matter what they do? They couldn't afford to pay for this stuff via the legal channels anyway. And from the perspective of companies this is a form of free marketing. Pirating exposes people to content they might not have otherwise had access to. Some day economic conditions may improve to the point that they have real buying power. Not that corporations have the ability to consider the long term.

    49. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by tiptone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      +1 OP clearly doesn't know what ASCAP is, and is so very clearly talking out his/her ass. Venue owners pay ASCAP for the right to perform copyrighted works in their venue (radio, jukebox, cover band, etc. it's all the same).

      --
      Please don't read my sig.
    50. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 4, Interesting

      All good points.

      > 3) Enact campaign finance reforms of some sort (the biggest and most challenging issue, though one in which there are many avenues along which to make advances).

      Spot on. Money needs to be *completely* removed from politics as a factor otherwise you end up with a death-spiral of who can outbid buying off the public.

      The sensible way would to pool ALL donations, and split the balance every month.

      I would add the other political reform would be is get rid of the parties, and focus on the *issues*, not this juvenile mudslinging crap that does nothing.

      The root problem is most Americans don't give a shit, to actually DO anything to change the existing system.

      --
      The best part apart of the US is Capitalism. The worst part about the US, ironically, is also Capitalism.

    51. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Works great, if you have enough politicians willing to bite the hand that feeds them and then gives them cushy lobbyist jobs when they retire from politics. Seems like all recent legislation in the area has been moving things in the opposite direction though. For things to change I think we'll need widespread grassroots demonstrations. I'm actually rather surprised that the Occupy movement never latched on to it as a cause - seems like corporate corruption of politics is the root cause of most of the financial imbalance, and something just about everyone can agree is a bad thing.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    52. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      I know, right? I just wonder why they don't ever put other types of music on CD. Seems like an untapped market.

      An untaped market, so to speak...

    53. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      Are you trolling or serious? You are attacking American pop bands yet you have L'arc N Ciel, 2 NE 1 and so many other poppy tween bands that I can not list them all. Seriously I think Asians have taken pop music to a whole new level of stupid.

      Don't get me wrong I'm in no way against Asian entertainment. I love Korean dramas, they have something that American tv lacks, depth and plot not to mention good acting.

      I'm just saying when the country you live in pumps out 2012 versions of 80's boy bands, I'd say your music industry or the consumers rather have a problem. The music industry just puts out what sells.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    54. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The scenario, as put forth by the GP, is an issue for ASCAP and/or its international equivalents, not RIAA here.

      And ASCAP is every bit as evil as the RIAA, if not more so. Got a jukebox in your bar? You have to pay ASCAP. Live band? Pay ASCAP. Your band only plays original or public domain works? Pay ASCAP anyway.

      A bar owner here in Springfield, who hired bands that played only bluegrass and folk music (public domain) was taken to court by ASCAP for the fees they said he owed for the public domain music that was performed in his bar. He went bankrupt fighting the suit and his bar is now closed.

      ASCAP is pure evil.

    55. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by g0bshiTe · · Score: 0

      If you have Verizon tune to channel 229 M-Net take a look at what passes for music. It's like bad 80's pop modernized.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    56. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by istartedi · · Score: 1

      I live in the US. We don't give a shit either. You might have mistaken multinationals for "the US". That's just branding. Rest assured, if China, India, or some other country becomes the favored brand they'll do their best to make you believe they are Chinese, Indian or whatever.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    57. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Political organization prohibits any meaningful action. Activism of this kind only satisfies the desire to feel important and in control. To participate within a system for the purpose of changing it is like becoming the pope to change the church; if that change opposes the nature of the organization, it will be an uphill battle. You will only succeed to the degree you participate with the design of the system. It isn't that the individual has no effect on the rest of the organization, it is that the organization has much more effect on the individual. That underlying inclination of keeping the system going is in the interest of many who participate with the state. All those people depend on it for their entire income. This incentive is at odds with plenty of goals of todays activists(tea party, occupy, whatever). They can only make a difference to the degree that they abandon their goals and follow the crowd.

      You can see this by simply applying this idea to smaller organizations. If one thinks they can participate within a system to change it in ways opposed to its natural inclination, prove it. Start small; rather than taking on the largest organization that exists, why not try a corporation or a local mafia or state union instead? Get them to give up their state privilege, their local monopoly on violence against others as the means to make their living. See how that goes. I'll be waiting.

      Real change begins within our own personal lives. Rather than taking on such a large institution, we have to focus on what matters and what has most bang for the buck. Behave right, and expect right behaviors from those you associate with. Do not tolerate evil within your own relationships. This means parents, friends, coworkers and anyone you deal with. Demand voluntary, peaceful interactions from your companions and reject any other behaviors. If you cannot achieve even this, where you have most control, then it is a fantasy to look beyond out to the government.

    58. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I talk about bands being sued for playing cover songs, and you send a link about ASCAP suing a bar over its jukebox. A bar and a jukebox is not a band. I do see a few examples of ASCAP suing bars for allowing bands to play "unlicensed" covers, but I don't see anyone suing the actual bands.

      Also, apparently there's an all-female cover band called Lez Zeppelin.

      It's not illegal for a band to cover a song, that is allowed under fair use. It may be illegal for the band to try and profit from that though, but again, I can't find instances of a band being sued over it.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    59. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by flaming+error · · Score: 2

      That case is about playing a copyrighted recording in a bar without a license for playing it in public. The case ancestor brought up is for a live performance of a song by a cover band, which is not a copyright violation.

      By analogy, It's the difference between reading a book to kids at the library, and handing out photocopies of a book to kids at the library.

    60. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This person's statements are total bunk. Pop music is very popular in a number of Asian countries and CD and DVD sales are huge too.

      Which means that they too can be easily manipulated since they can't discern quality either.

    61. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

      odd that a [paid?] performance by a cover band (or worse, a tribute band) isn't a violation, yet if they sold a copy of that recording it certainly would be.

      --
      ...
    62. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by letherial · · Score: 1

      You said it, culture is evolving.

      The context of my comment is forcing a culture change, evolving is different then changing in the context of my message.

    63. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by letherial · · Score: 1

      He expressed his opinion and i countered that opinion. A asshole is someone who beats someone up for having a difference in opinion; While i consider the commenter wrong in his thinking, asshole, or any such negative thought of him, never came in my head.

    64. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Organize...then you too can be a terrorist!

    65. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      As a consumer, fuck you right back. You're here to entertain me, monkey.

      Now clap those cymbals in time so I can syncopate my chewing.

    66. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

      The above poster was right, in my opinion, but, this is the issue with that.

      But it also goes deeper.

      Corporate interests have took over the legislative and executive branch, which election reform can help (which good luck even getting with the ilk that's in there now). But they've dug their way into the judicial branch as well. Corporations will take the election reform to SCOTUS if they feel they need to in order to get their way, where they will probably win, because SCOTUS is just as bought out as the rest of them at this point.

      It's possible to fix the issues, in theory, but at this point, you're up against the entirety of the system. And most people, well, they're busy being distracted by corporate propaganda from those that run the entire system that's shoveled at us 24/7 everywhere we go any more.

      And now I'll be

    67. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Look, look! These wannabees who live in a different place like music that I don't like!

    68. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by thomst · · Score: 4, Informative

      cpu6502 blathered:

      Public performance of copyrighted works, even legal recordings, is forbidden in the U.S. and the RIAA expects other countries to have similar laws.

      Absolutely, totally, completely, and utterly incorrect.

      Covering another songwriter's material is perfectly legal, whether you record it or perform it live - as long as the orginal recording has been in release for at least one calendar year. HOWEVER, if you cover a song, you MUST pay what's known as a "mechanical license fee" of 9.10 cents per copy for songs 5 minutes or less or 1.75 cents per minute or fraction thereof, per copy for songs over 5 minutes to the author or authors of the material (fee schedule courtesy Harry Fox Agency). That royalty rate is set by Congress, per international treaties.

      I understand that talking out your ass is a favorite /. exercise, but ... really?

      --
      Check out my novel.
    69. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, that really sounds like a free society. Isn't it freedom that American's bang on about all the time?

    70. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by neurophil12 · · Score: 1

      That's why I prefer to put the focus on local and state elections, where individuals tend to have greater power when they choose to come together. While the power of corporations is strong, we do still live in a democracy. We're currently being divided in an effort to short circuit democracy, but momentum can be built around these issues if enough people realize that in order to advance their pet issues they need to focus on the core electoral problems preventing progress. If smart, charismatic people are drafted to run for state delegate and senate positions, from both parties, with the core issue to reform the electoral system to make their constituent's vote matter more (and there's a great marketing point), there is hope. Change has always appeared difficult, and it has always happened when people were motivated enough and kept fighting. The corporations don't have more power than the people, what they have is consolidated power against the people's diffuse power. If enough people join together in our system, they will prevail.

    71. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by neurophil12 · · Score: 2

      Spot on. Money needs to be *completely* removed from politics as a factor otherwise you end up with a death-spiral of who can outbid buying off the public.

      The sensible way would to pool ALL donations, and split the balance every month.

      Part of the reason campaign finance reform is the most difficult issue is that there is a real concern with regards to freedom of speech. SCOTUS is wrong IMHO that money=speech, but there is still a relationship between money and speech that must be dealt with. I'd rather not get into details on that in this forum, but I do think it is important to recognize that it isn't difficult just because of those who benefit from the current system.

      I would add the other political reform would be is get rid of the parties, and focus on the *issues*, not this juvenile mudslinging crap that does nothing.

      I don't feel like there is anything wrong with political parties per se, so long as the number of them is flexible and not dictated by entrenched interests. Political parties are a natural feature of any democratic system, in that like-minded individuals come together to form a power block to achieve more than they could individually. My suggested solutions wouldn't dissolve the Republican and Democratic parties, but it would force them to actually compete, and enable other valuable viewpoints to emerge and gain support more easily.

      The root problem is most Americans don't give a shit, to actually DO anything to change the existing system.

      I'd hesitate to call any one thing the root of the problem, only because we're dealing with a complex system with feedbacks, however I'll certainly agree that this is a major problem in our society. On the other hand, the number of people voting fluctuates greatly from one election to the next, and there are a lot of people on any given day that do give a shit. The real challenge in my mind is getting them to all focus on one or a few things (and particularly the ones I suggested in my prior post) at any given time.

    72. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by msobkow · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Canadian equivalent to ASCAP is so anal retentive about collecting their royalties that they PAY someone to attend every concert to make sure that only the songs on the play list are played, including encores. If anything other than the listed songs is played and the band itself didn't write the track, they get charged a fee.

      I forget the name of the organization off hand, but I've known a few people over the years who worked for them monitoring concerts. From their perspective, they got to see the concert for free -- all they had to do was write down the title of each track as it was played.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    73. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since a live performance involves no copies on its own, the royalty due for that is presumably zero?

    74. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Garybaldy · · Score: 1

      The bands don't get charged the venues do. Any venues that have live performances get stung with the charge.

    75. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by garaged · · Score: 1

      The problem with US and a few more countries is general population firmly believes in what is being told on advertising campaings, and they feel the need to enforce what they think is valuable to the whole world.

      Pretty much, most people would like to hear recreational music, or see some tv show or movie every once in a while, but current cost is kind of ridiculous, how come most things have 10-15% of profit over its price but music and movies have several hundred? It is not only ilogical, it drives economy to the current issues it is having. All of it sponsored by nice laws done by the politicians that should be protecting general populationm since corporations dont even pay most of the taxes being paid, right?

      --
      I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
    76. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Omestes · · Score: 1

      The asian government...

      I didn't realize that Asia was a country. I must be out of the loop lately.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    77. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Fned · · Score: 1

      The case ancestor brought up is for a live performance of a song by a cover band, which is not a copyright violation.

      Yes, it is.

      Most places pay ASCAP fees or whatever, so you can play covers there without having to ask permission first. But that's because the performance license is already paid for, not because a license isn't required.

    78. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Fned · · Score: 3, Informative

      odd that a [paid?] performance by a cover band (or worse, a tribute band) isn't a violation, yet if they sold a copy of that recording it certainly would be.

      Both are violations.

      Most places pay ASCAP fees or whatever, so you can play covers there without having to ask permission first. But that's because the performance license is already paid for, not because not because a license isn't required.

      Some places don't pay ASCAP fees, and also don't allow covers. For Example.

    79. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      You act like a teenager (lacking in manners). People above have cited numerous sources where people were FINED for not getting permission to perform a song (or play a CD) in a public venue. So NO I was not wrong. Nor was I deserving of being insulted by an adult who still acts like he's 12 years old.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    80. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 1

      So, the answer to our piracy and IP idiocy is to abolish recordings and limit ourselves to live performances?

      No I think he was saying nobody gives a shit what you do about your copyright problem.

    81. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by royallthefourth · · Score: 1

      No. Read Marx.

    82. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Live music is better than listening to some stupid pop artists from your cd's.

      No it isn't
      A live band doesn't fit in my car. A live band doesn't go over very well at the office.
      Most live bands suck, that is why they are playing at the local pub.
      I've got a better idea, instead of wasting your time sitting in a bar, why don't you do something productive?
      What? you don't like someone else telling you what to do?....

    83. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hurrr you can only be a good person if you are social duurrrrrr.

    84. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 1

      Last time I looked Asia was a big place. Not as big as Russia but that's the Van Der Grinton projection for you.

      So maybe you are both right.

    85. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 1

      I will also add that I am wrong due to the fact that most of Russia is in Asia, and even on the projection I am looking at the bit of Russia to the left of the Urals is definitely smaller than the bit below Russia and above Australia, EVEN if you include Franz Josef land and all the sea in between.

      I blame old age and the fact that /. doesn't allow editing.

    86. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      could not have said it better

    87. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 2
      Even if we did care, here in Northern Mozambique there is no place to buy genuine original discs of anything. All DVD are pirated, all music is pirated and there is no store to buy a copy that supports either the industry or the artist.

      Also, I called Microsoft to see about bulk licensing of office and I could not get anyone to tell me where I could pay. Supposedly the office that covers Mozambique is in Namibia but none of the emails or phone number work. The South African office refuses to license for companies in Mozambique. So what option do people have? In our lab we just used other software but if you buy MS Office in a store here, you get a pirated copy.

      It appears no one is interested in selling to people in a country where average income is less than a few hundred USD per month, save the pirates. And they seem to make money just fine, even at a dollar a copy for multi-movie (crap quality) DVDs. So, industry, if you're not providing a legitimate alternative, you may stop complaining.

    88. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by techhead79 · · Score: 1

      Wow. My last post on slashdot was modded flamebait...but this post isn't... Oh wait this post is now flamebait too...hmm.

    89. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      I live in not-Asia, where people don't hang around in bars and restaurants all day, but have family, jobs and hobbies which aren't so easily combined with live music.

      p.s. I'm well aware this guy in no way represents actual life in Asia.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    90. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by jasonq · · Score: 1

      It's near the Iraq and South Africa and such. You obviously don't have a map.

    91. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by travbrad · · Score: 1

      "bad 80's pop modernized". So basically it's like current American pop music, just in Korean?

    92. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      No, the answer is for more and more countries around the world is to tell the US and to a lesser extent countries like France to go and fuck themselves.

      Now if only we could make a start convincing our governments to represent our interests instead of those of the US...

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    93. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Should those copyright laws be tackled upon a competitive basis. Which has greater true value primary resources and labour or artificially valued IP.

      Is the US using threats of military actions and economic sanctions anti-competitively artificially inflating the value of it's often anti-social pornographic IP.

      The global market really needs to take a long hard look of the artificial value of IP versus the real value of primary resources. Is the current US administration insane enough to attempt economic sanctions against all countries rich in primary resources, should they create their own economic block to ensure the proper value of real property.

      The US was barely able to drag Europe along in it's insane Israeli driven crusade against Iran, with threats of nuclear weapons, war and shutting down oil flow. Could the US find itself the victim of primary resources economic sanctions for using extortion, corruption, illegal intelligence activities, to artificially grossly inflate the highly questionable value of it's IP.

      Has the US become far more of a burden than it is worth?

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    94. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by crutchy · · Score: 1

      why did you pick 12? just outta curiosity

    95. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by crutchy · · Score: 1

      bootlegging is an industry in asia, making money from all the tourists from the usa who go there on holidays and pick up movies/cds for a fraction of the price they pay back home

      don't be too disappointed that the rest of the world doesn't give a fuck about mariah carey or brad pitt

    96. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by crutchy · · Score: 1

      gud dammit! i was ripped off! i'm orstrayan, so where's my fucking philharmonic!?

    97. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by crutchy · · Score: 1

      just american pop music. asia has its own pop stars, many of which probably have more fans than the beatles. americans just can't see it through the insides of their ass holes.

    98. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But that takes work!

      Can't I just click "like" on something?

    99. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So no-one is buying AK48 and Morning Musume CDs anymore?

    100. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      In some countries parties are funded by taxation. Once you pull a certain percentage of the vote you qualify for funding and are not allowed to spend any of your own money on campaigns. No-one else is allowed to campaign for you either.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    101. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Dracophile · · Score: 1

      The american government at this point is pretty much entirely owned by various corporations and private interests that don't represent the thoughts and will of the american people.

      Unless you're willing to allege (and, preferably, to prove) that a non-trivial percentage of the votes are physically corrupted/subverted/whatever, then these various corporations and private interests very much do represent the thoughts and will of the American people who bother to vote.

      Yes, I did read the rest of your post; my point is that the vote -- assuming it is a fair one -- turns out overwhelmingly to favour the status quo.

      --
      Athy, athier, athiest.
    102. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      With regard to your sig... wouldn't you consider the annoyance of regularly changing it to be larger than the annoyance of ignoring an occasional reply to it ? ...see what I did there ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    103. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Actually there have been numerous successful democratic systems that do not have, or in some cases even ALLOW, political parties.
      One example is the system that existed in the old Boer Republics in South Africa. Under that system there were no parties. People ran for election as individuals within a specific region. The election winners then became representatives in the national government (which was called the Volksraad - lit. National Council). The members of the council then elected from among themselves a president who acted as the head of state.

      This system kept politicians directly accountable to their constituencies and kept campaign influences relatively small.

      Personally I would say such a system would ideally be coupled with a clause to make them instantly-recallable so that they have absolutely no power to vote in favor of a single decision that the majority of their constituencies do not support - but that's my socialist-libertarianism that believes we don't need politicians - at most we need mouthpieces for communities to negotiate with other communities on their behalf.

      The system was far from perfect - for example the state president had way too much unilateral power in my book - the last president Paul Kruger created one of the world's first national parks against overwhelming opposition both from the population and the council but he could go ahead and do it anyway.
      In retrospect, he did a very good thing there - but he could just as easily have done some very bad things as recalling the president even if he ignored the council was very difficult, this would need additional checks and balances.
      Ironically it could be argued that Kruger's biggest mistake was to declare war on Britain (though it can be shown that Britain forced him to do so and he had no real choice about it) - but that mistake was roundly supported by the majority of the council and the bulk of the population - so maintaining high degrees of power for voters is not a guarantee against mistakes, I just think it's better than the alternative.

      In the end, I am tied to a belief that the only just form of governance is self-governance. The only people who should be allowed to MAKE a law are the ones who have to live under it.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    104. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's exactly what the US Piracy Watchlist does too: impose American culture on other countries :)

    105. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Most of the bands you have heard of are associated with a label which has paid the fees (possibly out of the band's pocket to itself) to allow them to play cover songs. And the bands you haven't heard of are playing at venues that have paid the fees to allow cover songs to be played.

      Here's an article from 1996 about ASCAP threatening to sue camp grounds for public performances. ASCAP claims it only meant to charge for professional performances, but frankly, that's an excuse. They decided to shake down a bunch of camp sites with an ambiguous legal threat and got caught up in a public backlash over their attempted extortion of several girl scouts camps (among the over 6,000 camping grounds they threatened).

      Copyright organisations seems to be evil by definition, they seek to steal from the public to enrich themselves. It's simply ridiculous that a song (Over the Rainbow) from a movie released in 1939 (The Wizard of Oz) is still covered by copyright and still requires a license to sing in a "public performance". Copyright needs to be eliminated, or at least dramatically reduced. I see few good reasons for it to exist, and no good reasons why copyright should last more than 10 years. Copyright's revenues are heavily front loaded, which means each additional year of copyright protection increases costs for less revenue. By 15 years out, 98% of all revenues have been realised. If we broaden that out to economic benefits rather than specifically revenues of the copyright holder, the economic benefits of copyright are probably negative by 15 years out. The costs to enforce and police the copyright, which are increasingly being socialised by aggressive content industry lobbying, will definitely outweigh the limited benefits of copyright by that point.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    106. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Dracophile · · Score: 1

      2) Enact some sort of acceptability voting (e.g. instant run-off), starting with local and state elections and building support for federal elections.

      We have that here in Australia in most jurisdictions. We call it preferential voting, as you probably know. Just in case you don't know, there are two distinct flavours of it here: optional preferential voting and mandatory preferential voting. In the former, as in the elections in the state of New South Wales, you need only allocate preferences to the candidates you want to vote for. In the latter, as in the federal elections, you must number EVERY FUCKING CANDIDATE.

      Seriously, if you take instant runoff, make sure you take the OPV flavour of it. Do NOT force your voters to vote for candidates they don't want.

      --
      Athy, athier, athiest.
    107. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Devoidoid · · Score: 1

      Fair use doesn't apply here. If a band plays a cover song live, the venue is responsible for having paid a license fee to ASCAP or BMI or whomever. If the band records and distributes recordings of a cover song, they are responsible for paying a license fee, usually to the Harry Fox Agency which almost exclusively handles publishing royalties for cover recordings. The band doesn't get sued because it's in the songwriter's financial interests to have as many different people as possible play and record the song, because he or she gets a cut each time. At least that's how it's supposed to work.

    108. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by tibman · · Score: 1

      Why fly to a distant country to buy bootleg stuff? There is plenty of it in the USA. Also, my personal experience in the middle east says that bootlegging is extremely popular. Especially for console games.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    109. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by BlueshiftVFX · · Score: 1

      try singing happy birthday in a movie, without first paying for it.

    110. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by neurophil12 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the clarification. Now I'm remembering that acceptability voting is a distinct and slightly different system. You've made me curious though, how many candidates do you usually have in the federal elections?

    111. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SOCAN -- an yes, very anal retentive, but good for free live shows.

    112. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CDs and DVDs are the same size in both regions of the world. They just look bigger in Asia when compared to the people holding them. DUH!!

    113. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by MacWiz · · Score: 1

      I understand that talking out your ass is a favorite /. exercise, but ... really?

      The mechanical license fee is for recordings, not live performances. The Harry Fox Agency has nothing whatsoever to do with public performances. That falls under the dominion of ASCAP/BMI and SESAC.

    114. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by MacWiz · · Score: 1

      The same ASCAP/BMI goons are just as eager to shut down a venue for having live music if the license fees haven't been paid. The only way to get around it is if the performers are only playing original or public domain music.

    115. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by crutchy · · Score: 1

      i dunno. i don't personally do it. i just know plenty that do.

      i don't think buying pirate movies is why people go overseas; they go to have a holiday.
      buying pirate movies is just a perk i guess. instead of buying a tshirt for your kids, you can get 30 movies that would cost you a small fortune at home.

    116. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by drkstr1 · · Score: 1

      Unless you're willing to allege (and, preferably, to prove) that a non-trivial percentage of the votes are physically corrupted/subverted/whatever, then these various corporations and private interests very much do represent the thoughts and will of the American people who bother to vote.

      Yes, I did read the rest of your post; my point is that the vote -- assuming it is a fair one -- turns out overwhelmingly to favour the status quo.

      What if the system was rigged by design so that your choices on who to vote for weren't really choices at all (at least in any practical sense)?

      Is it possible then, that they do not represent the will of the people? It seems no matter what are "choices" are, it's always a vote for the status quo.

      --
      Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
    117. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by nobodie · · Score: 2

      Old fart here.

      I was playing kickball in a tournament with my co-workers last weekend and there was music blasting across 12 fields from a ginormous POS PA system. I am disturbed by this, and I would like to think about why.

      I once taught a course in listening for a crisis hotline ( i was an experienced hand for the call center and was asked to teach the course for incoming volunteers). I quickly learned who would make it mnore than 3 months and who would not. It was a simple exercise: go home, turn off all your radios, TVs, any source of noise in your house that is not natural sound, then sit and listen for 10 minutes. Dn't listen FOR anything, just listen and see what you hear.
      People who said straight up that they could not do it, could not even think about doing it, usually dropped out before the end of the training. People who tried but failed to listen for just ten minutes usually could not last three months. The only ones who worked out as reliable volunteers could sit and just listen to nothing for ten minutes.

      I remember going to baseball games, like triple and double A games, and there was no "extra" noise, just the crowd, the announcers and the play. Now it is just crashing noise.

      Why are we afraid of just listening to nothing> Why do we need all that noise all the time? What are we afraid of that makes us have to have something to keep our thoughts at bay?

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    118. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by pxc · · Score: 1

      I know that our cultures do have real, significant differences, but the notion that the US is ‘anti-social’ whereas China isn't does not adequately describe any of those differences. I know that the individualism of the US can seem cold or disconnected at times, but that doesn't mean that we don't have real friendships or that social connections still don't ultimately drive entertainment for us.

      I spend a lot of my time listening to recorded music, and so do my friends. Part of what this lets us do is discover new music and develop specific tastes. What I love about it is that when my friends and I explore new genres, new styles, or particular artists, we have a chance to do it together. One of my favorite things to do with records is recommend them to friends. When I make a successful recommendation, I feel like I get to show a friend that I understand their taste, care about it, and want to share with them all kinds of things that I know they'll love. Often, I then later go out with those same friends to go see the bands to which we introduced one another at live performances. A couple of times, we've even all crammed into a car and driven for 6-9 hours to go to another state so we could go see someone play.

      What I mean by all of this is that sometimes the specifics of the music being played are important, and they actually provide a way to show affection and build relationships rather than avoid them. And please, don't let the actions motivated by giant sacks of money in the hands of some of our most powerful industries pervert the way you think about American citizens. We have a lot of flaws, as do all peoples, but music is now and has always been a deeply social affair for human beings. It still is here, and for most ordinary citizens, the social aspect of music is more important than any industrial metrics. Some of us even remember that copyright is not an end-in-itself.

      I wouldn't ask you to approve of all aspects of American culture, but please don't tell me that I don't love my friends or family because of some secondhand ideas you have about how I feel about copyright issues. I would always hesitate to jump to similar conclusions about you based upon your national policy.

    119. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Xamataca · · Score: 1

      As a RIAA member, you both owe me money.

      Now pay my DRMed monkey musician you bloody pansy deaf mofo.

      --
      ***Game Over***Insert Coin***
    120. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Claiming one country should forgo their culture because you said yours is better is not a very good argument.

      Hollywood and American entertainment culture, as well as the people who buy cheap American crap for the rest of the world, please take note.

      These days something has got to have several years of spectacularly good reviews before I'll even consider watching it, if it comes out of America. And I consistently tell the "what do you watch" polling agencies that too.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    121. Re:US, nobody gives a shit by Dracophile · · Score: 1

      In my division there were 8 candidates at the last election. Regrettably, in order to register a vote I had to put a preference for each candidate, numbering all boxes 1 to 8 in order of my preference. Fortunately, the candidate that I numbered 8 got the majority of the cote on the primary count, which meant that I didn't vote for her.

      In principle, however, if the count has to go out to 7th preferences, I may end up voting in candidate number 7.

      If it wasn't instant run-off here, but regular run-off instead (which would be stupidly expensive), I could turn up to vote at the primary election and for as many run-offs as there were still candidates that I was interested in, and then either a) stop voting once I run out of candidates I like or b) cast informal votes if voting was still mandatory.

      Alternatively, we could just do what we do in NSW state elections: optional preferential voting.

      --
      Athy, athier, athiest.
  2. Canada should be embarrassed by Das+Auge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Canada should be embarrassed. I mean, they have some of the best privacy laws of any country.

    On a related note, as an American, could I borrow some?

    1. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by BagOBones · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We are, the only reason we are on the list is to pressure out government to implement a DMCA type law.

      --
      EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
    2. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 2

      Sure, if you don't mind letting the terrorists win.

    3. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by PPH · · Score: 2

      No. And you will be searched when crossing the border back into the USA to make sure you aren't bringing any of those crazy ideas about privacy and civil rights in with you. We've nearly got them eradicated down here. We can't have you re-infecting the population with such thinking, like what happened in the 18th century.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Canada will be implementing said law... before the end of this year... but evidently not enforcing it on matters of private copying.... which makes one wonder if they are not intending to enforce it in such circumstances, why was it is evidently still going to be illegal in such a case, particularly when every other party in parliament was asking for that as a concession to the bill.

    5. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 5, Funny

      They're lying, again. They've lied about every. single. point. they made during the election, and there's strong evidence that even the election results themselves are a lie.

      They want to have it on the books so that if Beardo is at a protest or starts to make trouble, they can see what Beardo's been doing online and put him in jail or bankrupt him or hell, just embarrass him. Ripping a DVD is a $20k fine and 5 years in prison. Unlocking your nook? Same thing. Installing Ubuntu? Yep, prison. (Okay, you deserve that last one.) Any digital lock on any media cannot be bypassed or that's the penalty. That's not fear-mongering, that's what is in the law. If you buy a DVD and rip it to play on your unlocked iPhone, you're looking at 10+ years in jail. If you burned down Parliament with everyone inside, you'd get out on parole sooner than that.

      "We're not going to do this!" means "We don't want you to complain until this is the law."

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    6. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm not going to worry. When I smuggle in crazy ideas about privacy and civil rights, I always use stenography to hide them in PowerPoint presentations describing terrorist plots, and hide them in my underpants.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a related note, as an American, could I borrow some?

      They will probably "trickle down"

    8. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 1

      When/How did installing Ubuntu become a crime?

    9. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      " If you burned down Parliament with everyone inside, you'd get out on parole sooner than that."

      Sounds like you canadians have a plan in place then to fix the problems?

      Remember, burning down the White house here in the USA did not fix us, Look at the scumbags we have in ours.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    10. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Funny

      When Unity came out as the enforced default UI.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    11. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by mark-t · · Score: 1

      They aren't lying about not enforcing it in private copying matters, because it is actually entirely UNenforceable... (and the biggest reason why so many were pushing for its removal from the bill) How could they possibly prosecute a crime that nobody other than the perpetrator could ever possibly know had occurred?

    12. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By seizing your ipod at the airport as you go through security and checking to see if there are any non-standard recordings on there. Or seizing it when they stop you on the road for some BS reason like speeding, even if you weren't, etc.

    13. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      They aren't lying about not enforcing it in private copying matters, because it is actually entirely UNenforceable... (and the biggest reason why so many were pushing for its removal from the bill) How could they possibly prosecute a crime that nobody other than the perpetrator could ever possibly know had occurred?

      Easy. Strike it off the bill then. If it's unenforcable, remove it!

      If it's in the books, it's enforcable.

      Think of it like the speed limit - I'm sure there's a stretch of road where everyone speeds through, it's just the police don't bother. Doesn't mean the law doesn't exist nor that they can't prosecute you for it. Or decide that you will be the one caught even though everyone else is doing the same 20kph over the limit.

      If the law's on the books, it doesn't mean it's unenforcable, they're just choosing not to enforce it. If they have reason to "get you" (perhaps say, you're a charity doing environmental work), the law's on the books so they can sieze your computer to find other material as well.

      Otherwise if it's so unenforcable, why bother having it in the bill in the first place? Removing it is easy, after all (the bill hasn't passed and can be modified and debated).

      The fact it's still in there means that as long as you're an oil-loving damn-the-environment type person, you're fine. But give the government any reason to search your computer, and they can throw this in as well.

      The fact that the government chooses to not enforce a law doesn't make said law invalid - you can argue it in court, but you're taking a risk on whether the judge decides to agree or disagree on that point.

    14. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

      " If you burned down Parliament with everyone inside, you'd get out on parole sooner than that."

      Sounds like you canadians have a plan in place then to fix the problems?

      Remember, burning down the White house here in the USA did not fix us, Look at the scumbags we have in ours.

      Well, it was proto-Canadians who burned down the White House... maybe the US should return the favour?

      But as you said, it didn't really make things any better, other than allowing some royalists to vent their frustrations.

    15. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Easy. Strike it off the bill then. If it's unenforcable, remove it!

      That's what everybody else was saying... but the conservatives insisted that it be in there anyways, because they seem to feel that the bill had no teeth otherwise.

      If it's in the books, it's enforcable.

      Again... please enlighten me as to how something illegal that nobody would or even *COULD* ever even know had occurred other than the person who did it, be enforced?

      And yes... that's how utterly stupid the bill that they are intending to pass is.

      Otherwise if it's so unenforcable, why bother having it in the bill in the first place?

      See above.

      Removing it is easy, after all (the bill hasn't passed and can be modified and debated).

      Not now... the bill has passed final reading stages, in spite of unanimous objection to some of its provisiions from all parties other than the Conservatives. The Conservatives, having a majority seat position, seem to be in a position to do whatever they want, regardless of any outside opposition... until the next election. This bill will pass long before then.

      The fact that the government chooses to not enforce a law doesn't make said law invalid

      I wasn't arguing that it would be invalid... I was only arguing that it was so stupid to have it as a law at all that there aren't words invented to describe just how absent of any degree of real thought could have possible went into this. Is there such a thing as negative thought?

    16. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by SilentStaid · · Score: 1

      Unity

      I'm with you on this! /ducks

    17. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 3, Informative

      Again... please enlighten me as to how something illegal that nobody would or even *COULD* ever even know had occurred other than the person who did it, be enforced?

      How about their other bill (C-30) that allows for unlimited warrantless recording and logging of everything you ever do online?

      What if the media companies seed their own movies, log the IP addresses and report those to the police?

      What if they just take their chances if you're being a problem with them? 75% of the US population (and I would assume a slightly higher rate in Canada) says that media piracy is just fine. I take that to mean "they've done it". One movie that's out of region, one installation of Linux on a Win8 box, you play your Wii games off a hard drive so your kids don't fuck up the fucking disks AGAIN, and you're in jail for 5 years.

      Once you get out, you're a convicted criminal (in the US, a felon) so what's your word worth anyway?

      Additionally, there's now no risk to the media companies. Now that it's moving from civil to criminal, they can use the resources of the state (Canada) to threaten you. Canada's loser-pay system doesn't affect criminal cases.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    18. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not there yet. They're all pretty much a waste of ammo and/or accelerant. We've been using the soap box, and that's been simply ignored. We used the ballot box, and it seems that they took that away from us. The oversight group, Elections Canada, had its budget cut by 7.5 million this year, when they're in the middle of investigating the biggest fraud case in Canadian history. So The Jury box has been stripped of its funding.

      I am concerned that someone's going to move to Box Four, and that's a terrible thing. We've never done that sort of thing up here.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    19. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by mark-t · · Score: 1

      How about their other bill (C-30) that allows for unlimited warrantless recording and logging of everything you ever do online?

      What does doing something online have to do with private copying? You can copy a movie or song without being online at all.

      What if the media companies seed their own movies, log the IP addresses and report those to the police?

      If they seed their own movies, then they are willfully sharing them with the public. They cannot broadcast that they are giving permission to copy the files and then go after people that do, any more than it would be legal for a police officer to change a speed limit sign temporarily to a higher value and then ding somebody for going over the actual limit.

    20. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      They could check if you've downloaded deCSS libraries or visited PB or searched Google for a torrent. They can see if you've downloaded handbrake or any mp3s / AVIs / MKVs anything at all.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    21. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Meh don't worry little canuck, just as the UK went all big brother and made us in the USA feel better so too will our pathetic congress critters that frankly are able to blow more money than Charlie Sheen on a coke binge at a porn convention will just keep printing the money until the whole shell game shits all over itself and the US dollar makes Zimbabwe money look good and then you'll just be so damned happy you don't have to pull your SUV by horseback to really give a shit about some stinky old law.

      Hell if its one thing we can learn from each other it is that ALL of the western governments are about as useless as tits on a boar hog and so damned corrupt they'd sell their mama for a bribe, so just grab all you can for you and yours because the excrement will be hitting the bladed cooling device. I figure the USA as you know it know will be gone by 2020 when our debt will be...what? 500 times the GDP of the planet or so? of course by then the MAFIAA will have passed laws so that if you fart and it sounds like a note in the western scale you owe one of them a check, but hey What can ya do, they got Tomahawks and sacks of money and you got shotguns and a quickly inflating away paycheck, not exactly a fair fight friend.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    22. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (fyi: steganography)

    23. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by BeaverCleaver · · Score: 1

      pathetic congress critters that frankly are able to blow more money than Charlie Sheen on a coke binge at a porn convention

        of course by then the MAFIAA will have passed laws so that if you fart and it sounds like a note in the western scale you owe one of them a check

      Those two lines are absolute gold. You should copyright them or something, because that is very quotable.

    24. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>>What if the media companies seed their own movies, log the IP addresses and report those to the police?

      Could you not do likewise? Create a song. Post it on thebay and then claim they downloaded it?

    25. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada's loser-pay system doesn't affect criminal cases.

      Well it should ! How else can we fend off the malicious prosecution of bureaucrats and cops creating laws trying to justify there measly existence?

      It's probably just the next tax grab. Like speeding tickets are today.

    26. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by crutchy · · Score: 1

      omg they have coke at porn conventions!?

    27. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      How long do you think before they start suing people who hear a song for "storing a copy in biological media."
      After-all, if you remember a song, that means you've made a copy - in your neurons. In theory you can listen to the song for ever without paying - just keep remembering it. The more you listen, the less likely you become to EVER forget.

      Of course there would be added penalties if you made a further reproduction or public performance possibly of a derived work... that is to say, the MAFIAA will sue you for twice as much if somebody heard you humming a song you once heard....

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    28. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by brit74 · · Score: 1

      > "Ripping a DVD is a $20k fine and 5 years in prison."

      "(Jul. 26, 2010) The U.S. Copyright Office published six new exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (DMCA) anti-circumvention clause today which should make it far easier for online filmmakers to legally use commercial DVDs. Up until now, filmmakers were actually breaking the law when ripping DVDs to get footage because the act of ripping entails circumventing copy-protection measures."
      ...
      The new exemptions come only days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a ruling questioning whether the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions can be used at all to restrict use cases that would otherwise be perfectly legal. In its ruling, the court wrote:

      “Merely bypassing a technological protection that restricts a user from viewing or using a work is insufficient to trigger the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision. The DMCA prohibits only forms of access that would violate or impinge on the protections that the Copyright Act otherwise affords copyright owners.”

      In other words: Ripping a DVD to make a backup copy is perfectly legal, ripping it to sell copies is not — at least based on this decision. Maybe the DMCA is finally catching up with reality, after all.
      http://gigaom.com/video/new-dmca-exemptions-ripping-dvds-for-online-video-now-legal/

    29. Re:Canada should be embarrassed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems clear to me that the very instant one of these laws goes into place we should seek out some example wives and children of the members of the house of commons to "try out the new laws."
      With good lawyers they will hopefully help neuter the laws, and with bad lawyers they will help curb their enthusiasm for such laws in the future as some teenager is stripped of their right to visit the united states for the crime of downloading music.

  3. A Band by Das+Auge · · Score: 5, Funny

    You're right, CDs are crappy. That's why I always bring a live band with me when I drive to and from work.

    1. Re:A Band by Whalou · · Score: 5, Funny

      This also allows you to drive in the carpool lane.

      --
      English is not this .sig mother tongue...
    2. Re:A Band by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I already drive in the carpool lane, because I count all the voices in my head as passengers.

    3. Re:A Band by lightknight · · Score: 2

      Frankly, I am surprised that musical instrument manufacturers haven't attached EULAs and charges for every time you play a song with one of their instruments. If the RIAA likes playing their game with copyrights and screwing people, then Fender can play a game with them.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    4. Re:A Band by Moheeheeko · · Score: 1
      If it's good enough for Top Gear, it's good enough for me.

      http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/series-15-episode-2-sports-saloon-challenge-part-2

    5. Re:A Band by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah - I think I saw you drive home yesterday - were you the guy with the mariachi band on the back of your truck?

    6. Re:A Band by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, those were just guys he picked up at Home Depot to redo his deck.

    7. Re:A Band by LeadSongDog · · Score: 1

      Homer's quartet, the "Be Sharps" did it first, with "Baby On Board"...

      --
      Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
    8. Re:A Band by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      I but I bet by now you are really sick of the "free credit report.com" band...

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    9. Re:A Band by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1
      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    10. Re:A Band by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 2

      Frankly, I am surprised that musical instrument manufacturers haven't attached EULAs and charges for every time you play a song with one of their instruments. If the RIAA likes playing their game with copyrights and screwing people, then Fender can play a game with them.

      I'm a little surprised you would address this argument to me!

    11. Re:A Band by The1stImmortal · · Score: 1

      The Chaser tried this a while back - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j748BnuPJfo

    12. Re:A Band by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we thank you for the recognition of efforts to help save you time.

      Signed: The Voices Collective

  4. Ignore it by tsa · · Score: 1

    Michael Geist explains why this year's report should elicit outrage. Not only is the report lacking in objective analysis, it targets some of the world's poorest countries with no evidence of legal inadequacies and picks fights with any country that dare adopt a contrary view on intellectual property issues.

    So we can easily ignore that report.

    --

    -- Cheers!

    1. Re:Ignore it by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, while you're ignoring it, the politicians will be citing it for why we more and tougher IP legislation, both at home and abroad.

    2. Re:Ignore it by robot256 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You may ignore it if you wish, but do so at your peril. This report is a window into the minds of the politicians and bureaucrats who run our country and think they run the world. We ought to be using this to our advantage, to stir up pushback from other countries and put the bastards on the defensive. They're trying to bully the rest of the world into paying up--the only way to deal with a bully is to stand up for yourself and fight back.

    3. Re:Ignore it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of being intentionally ignorant, try reading the report even if you don't agree with it. Try to understand the points being made by the USTR even if you don't agree with them.

      I saw comments in the first few pages of the report that I did not understand and would like to know more about. Some of the comments in that report seem vague, possibly intentional, but I do not know that if I don't bother to read the report "word for word", not skimming it like I have, and ask tough questions of the authors.

      Being intentionally ignorant and casting out ideas you don't agree with does nothing to foster creative, intelligent discussion on /.

      Being intentionally ignorant and casting out ideas you don't agree with is just another form of apathy, and "apathy is the friend of politicians".

      If you don't care enough to get involved and question the politicians, and Ron Kirk is a politician and former Mayor of Dallas, TX, USA, then the lousy government you get from politicians that are "self-promoting" their own interests over yours is your own fault. Learn to live with your choices.

    4. Re:Ignore it by tsa · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately I live in a country where the leading (Christian) parties still think everything America does is brilliant and fantastic so we will comply without even asking. Luckily the EC seems to change its stance on the US a bit, so there is hope.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    5. Re:Ignore it by Mitsoid · · Score: 2

      I know how you feel.. I live in America...

      If it makes you feel any better, it's only super-rich Americans that are pushing this crap.. and anyone they can pay to convince (e.g. politicians, whom are also, generally, rich)

      The average American (excluding those whom watch Faux news) thinks this whole thing is incredibly stupid.. but those making under $250k/year do not have a political voice... We're just as disapproving as you all are.

    6. Re:Ignore it by jimbolauski · · Score: 2

      Well, while you're ignoring it, the politicians will be citing it for why we more and tougher IP legislation, both at home and abroad.

      What motivation does a country have to get off of double secret probation, no trade embargoes will placed on countries listed on the report. This report has less teeth then a UN resolution, it is merely finger wagging in the hopes of pressuring other nations into abiding by foreign rules.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    7. Re:Ignore it by operagost · · Score: 1

      those making under $250k/year do not have a political voice

      Correct. The President, VP, and nearly all of Congress make far more than that.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    8. Re:Ignore it by robot256 · · Score: 1

      I know how you feel.. I live in America...

      LOL, So do I, actually in D.C... I just like to pretend that I don't.

    9. Re:Ignore it by robot256 · · Score: 1

      Oh wow, I got more sub-replies than I realized. Didn't notice you were replying to TSA.

    10. Re:Ignore it by tibit · · Score: 1

      Christian parties, you say, hmmmm. The whole "no other Gods before me" thing must have whooshed over their heads, then? Ah, nothing new, nothing new :(

      To preempt the obvious: probably they figured out that if they can't have other Gods before the one and only God, they surely can have them right after. I feel much better now, why, thank you!

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    11. Re:Ignore it by Hatta · · Score: 1

      That's OK. I'll be ignoring that too.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    12. Re:Ignore it by crutchy · · Score: 1

      Instead of being intentionally ignorant, try reading the report even if you don't agree with it.

      are you one of those silly fat bastards who reads and interprets the entirety of every eula he is subjected to? i wouldn't be at all surprised

    13. Re:Ignore it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A friend said to me, "If your vote is so worthless, why do they spend so much money to get it?" So even if it feels worthless, I vote anyway.

  5. ip enforcement, not feeding hungry people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, so all of you impoverished nations... your people might be poor and starving, but don't even think for a minute about feeding them. Take that money you would have fed hungry children with and step up your IP policing, because your laws are good, you are just wasting money you could use for more enforcement in all of the wrong places, like feeding your people.

    1. Re:ip enforcement, not feeding hungry people by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      "Take that money you would have fed hungry children"

      LOL good one

      "Take that money you would have fed spent on lavish palaces for your elite"

      FTFY

    2. Re:ip enforcement, not feeding hungry people by BootysnapChristAlive · · Score: 1

      Nice priorities they have, right? Out of all the things we could be doing, we're trying to stop people from copying certain pieces of data...

      And what do we gain? Absolutely nothing. I can't believe there are people, even here, who think this is a good idea.

    3. Re:ip enforcement, not feeding hungry people by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The US did manage to get new copyright laws passed in Iraq and Afghanistan. This seems to be a high priority issue for some politicians.

    4. Re:ip enforcement, not feeding hungry people by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The US did manage to get new copyright laws passed in Iraq and Afghanistan. This seems to be a high priority issue for some politicians.

      Amazing what happens when you're an occupying force. It used to be called Colonialism.

      I seriously doubt that this was a priority in either country -- more like "if you don't pass this law, we're going to stop financial support or have you replaced".

      Classy.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  6. Article disappoints with lack of pirates. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A much better resource for information on piracy is http://www.icc-ccs.org/piracy-reporting-centre/live-piracy-report

  7. Disappointment by danaris · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From where I sit, this has been one of the greatest disappointments even staunch supporters like me have with Obama: his administration's continued support for the content industry at the expense of people in America and around the world.

    Dan Aris

    --
    Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
    1. Re:Disappointment by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Really? Does his IP maximalism really come close to his support for the NDAA? His assassination of US citizens and flagrant violation of the War Powers Act? His crack down on government whistle blowers (more whistle blowers prosecuted than all previous presidents combined)? His crack down on legal medical marijuana dispensaries despite his promise to respect states rights on the issue? His failure to prosecute anyone for the 2008 financial crisis?

      IP maximalism is bad, but it's WAY down on the list of grievences against Barack Obama.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Disappointment by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just one?

      Not his involving Americans in two new wars (Yemen and Libya) without permission of the People in Congress? Not his insistence that Congress add 2 lines to the NDAA to let him imprison americans without a trial? Not his assassination of 3 american citizens (including a 16 year old child) w/o giving them a constitutional a right to trial? Not his raising the national debt at twice the rate of George "duh" Bush? I would be HAPPY if Obama's only flaw was signing ACTA/supporting SOPA.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    3. Re:Disappointment by Nixoloco · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Really? Does his IP maximalism really come close to his support for the NDAA? His assassination of US citizens and flagrant violation of the War Powers Act? His crack down on government whistle blowers (more whistle blowers prosecuted than all previous presidents combined)? His crack down on legal medical marijuana dispensaries despite his promise to respect states rights on the issue? His failure to prosecute anyone for the 2008 financial crisis?

      IP maximalism is bad, but it's WAY down on the list of grievences against Barack Obama.

      While I agree with some of the things you are faulting him for (although not all are so clear), faulting him for "support for the NDAA" is over generalizing. An NDAA is passed every year. It is what specifies the budget and expenditures for the US DoD. You are probably upset with a single provision in this year's bill being referred to as the "Indefinite Detention" section. The president himself was not happy with this provision and pushed back. Unfortunately, a compromise on the wording didn't improve it much. Also (unfortunate) the law does nothing that the Federal courts have not already recognized as lawful.

    4. Re:Disappointment by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      I knew that one of the compromises I'd be making by voting Obama was that he'd almost certainly side with the content industry. This issue isn't something I hold against Obama, because he never campaigned that he'd fight Big Media. I'm far more disappointed with him backing down on things he *did* campaign on.

      That said, I also didn't feel that it would be much of a compromise, as a McCain administration would have done the same thing, with even more bad piled on top.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    5. Re:Disappointment by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      Not his insistence that Congress add 2 lines to the NDAA to let him imprison americans without a trial? Not his assassination of 3 american citizens (including a 16 year old child) w/o giving them a constitutional a right to trial?
      Son, your outrage is 68 years too late. See Ex parte Quirin and Korematsu v. United States for when you should have felt outrage.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    6. Re:Disappointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter. He still could've vetoed it. But he didn't. Even if it would have ultimately amounted to nothing, if he truly cared about the issue, he would have vetoed it.

    7. Re:Disappointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easy to say that the guy you don't like "would have done worse", it's the same kind of prejudiced speculation that we abhor when those whom we support are on the receiving side of that speculation. McCain would have done no worse.

    8. Re:Disappointment by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Considering the record of the previous incumbent that's still a vast improvement.

    9. Re:Disappointment by Hatta · · Score: 2

      The president himself was not happy with this provision and pushed back.

      No he didn't. He signed the bill. "Pushing back" would mean vetoing.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    10. Re:Disappointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At which point we would have all had to listen to how he "Hates the troops". Vetoing the US DOD budget is not a winning proposition for any president.

    11. Re:Disappointment by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      The president himself was not happy with this provision and pushed back.

      No, no a "threat" of a veto does not constitute pushback. A veto constitutes pushback. If he wasn't willing to fight this, then he gets no credit for opposing it.
      Plus, Obama's main concern was that he wanted the White House to have unconstrained power. That is, he was not opposing the detention itself, he was opposing the rule that may have ignored Presidential discretion to detain someone.

    12. Re:Disappointment by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but I don't vote for spineless twerps without any principles. If you're not willing to fight for the principles that made this country great, fuck off and die.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    13. Re:Disappointment by Nixoloco · · Score: 2

      There is a lot of misunderstanding of what exactly the bill would allow. There is some oversight and a form of judicial review. Obama most certainly did not want the White House to have "unconstrained power". Nothing he said would imply that. He did not want to be forced to put everyone in this class in military detention (maintaining the option of civilian courts in some cases). Everyone seems to miss the fact that this was included in the NDAA, which has to pass every year to continue funding the military. Voting against it would have been used against him politically as not supporting the military. It passed both the House and the Senate with >2/3 majority anyway.
      Obama said: "I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed . . . I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists."

    14. Re:Disappointment by Hatta · · Score: 1

      He did not want to be forced to put everyone in this class in military detention (maintaining the option of civilian courts in some cases).

      US citizens have a constitutional right to trial by a jury of their peers. Any legislation that conflicts with that must be vetoed, or the President is violating his oath of office.

      Voting against it would have been used against him politically as not supporting the military.

      That's when you address the country, and say "Fellow Americans, this is the change you voted for". And you explain why indefinite detention threatens us all. Directly address the militaristic rednecks out there, say something like "Do you really want me, socialist negro Barack Obama to have the power to detain you indefinitely?". They'll get the picture, and if not you fought the good fight. Better than being a collaborator.

      But no, that would have taken integrity, something Obama has none of.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    15. Re:Disappointment by khallow · · Score: 1

      At which point we would have all had to listen to how he "Hates the troops".

      So what? It wouldn't change anyone's vote.

    16. Re:Disappointment by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Yes but we vowed we'd never repeat the same mistake of rounding-up Americans and throwing them in concentration camps, just because they had japanese grandparents.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    17. Re:Disappointment by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>the record of the previous incumbent that's still a vast improvement.

      If you say so. I don't recall George Bush ordering the assassination of American citizens. That alone makes him (a little) better than Obama

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    18. Re:Disappointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sitting in the big chair means you get to sit in the bright spotlight. If you don't like the glare, find a different seat.

    19. Re:Disappointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people have a constitutional right to trial by a jury of their peers.

      FTFY. You need to read your constitution. Everyone (not just US citizens) has the right to due process. Everyone has the right to be free of unreasonable search.

      The US Constitution limits itself to citizens in only two places: who gets to vote; and who can be elected. All the other protections in your Constitution apply to everyone: citizen and non-citizen alike.

    20. Re:Disappointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gonna provide us with a citation on that, or just continue expecting us to take your word for it?

    21. Re:Disappointment by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Until someone with some backbone actually vetoes a bill like that, they'll keep slipping stupid crap like that into these "must pass" bills. It's clear that Obama is not going to be the one to do it though.

    22. Re:Disappointment by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      He did this well before the election too, so you are blind in your love for him.

      He promised not to vote for FISA as long as telecom immunity was a part of it, then promptly voted for it when it came to vote. Just Google "telecom immunity" and read the first two hits (second one first).

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  8. Like Sweden, Canada was 'had' by fascists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Canada should be embarrassed. I mean, they have some of the best privacy laws of any country.

    We (Canada) also have the worst "leadership" ever, starting with King Stephen W. Harper and his co-conspirators.

    Note to multinational corporate money: you've made enemies for life. You will pay.

  9. put a Democrat in the White House in 2012 by khipu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Democrats are concerned with civil liberties and the rights of the individual. We need change! Oh, wait...

    1. Re:put a Democrat in the White House in 2012 by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When it comes to copyright, the parties do seem pretty close to even, which is to say paid for by the same organizations.

      I think the Democrats are better overall on other kinds of civil liberties (especially compared to the theocratic wing of the Republican Party), but I'd probably vote for a Pirate Party if we had one.

    2. Re:put a Democrat in the White House in 2012 by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      I think the party you were looking for is Libertarian.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    3. Re:put a Democrat in the White House in 2012 by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      Democrats are just as authoritarian as Republicans, they just differ on what they want to ram down our throats.

    4. Re:put a Democrat in the White House in 2012 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some libertarians are apparently lacking the ability to detect sarcasm.

    5. Re:put a Democrat in the White House in 2012 by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Some Democrats are apparently lacking the ability to see irony.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    6. Re:put a Democrat in the White House in 2012 by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      Democrats are better overall on other kinds of civil liberties (especially compared to the theocratic wing of the Republican Party)

      I believe this is an understatement. What you mean is that Democrats appear better on civil liberties because Republican party is populated with totally mad, raving lunatics that are fully detached from reality even compared to your average congressman. That doesn't say much about Democrats, I don't think they could go worse than Republicans on gay or women rights even if they tried.

    7. Re:put a Democrat in the White House in 2012 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Modern conservatism is socially authoritarian (they want to control your life) and modern liberalism is economically authoritarian (they want to control your money). As if this weren't bad enough, in the developed world both of them are gradually edging towards totalitarianism.

    8. Re:put a Democrat in the White House in 2012 by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      That's more or less my motivation, yes. I can't say there are many Democratic politicians I would trust personally, and the party itself seems to be some mix of ineptness and idiocy, but the Republicans offend me considerably more in their attempts to intrude into my private life with their ridiculous religious values.

      For example, let's look at some things that to me seem like pretty easy questions: should it be legal for a wife to give her husband a blow job? What about an unmarried girlfriend giving her boyfriend a blowjob? What about a dude giving another dude a blowjob?

      We're talking about consensual adults in all three cases. It seems obvious to me that the only possible pro-liberty answer is "yes" in all three cases. It just isn't the government's business. What kind of absurdly intrusive government would try to criminalize blowjobs?

      Yet, in many conservative states, the answer all three was that yes, this should be illegal--- up until the Supreme Court invalidated their laws in 2003. Until that happened, the religious right, via their Republican and conservative Southern Democratic representatives, successfully blocked any repeal of those laws in many states. And even in the "red" states where all three weren't illegal, usually one or two still were (consensual blowjobs between married couples were decriminalized in several of them in the 70s).

    9. Re:put a Democrat in the White House in 2012 by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      When it comes to copyright, the parties do seem pretty close to even, which is to say paid for by the same organizations.

      The thing is most Americans are ok with copyright, so no politician has an incentive to try anything. They have a disincentive to change anything.

      Whether you like it or not, most Americans think that a creator should be able to control his work. You might even find some who have been upset when an 'unauthorized' sequel has been written to their favorite novel (for example, Gone With the Wind).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:put a Democrat in the White House in 2012 by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

      What kind of absurdly intrusive government would try to criminalize blowjobs?

      So true. Time and again we have seen that criminalizing these sorts of activities simply creates a black market, with the attending rises in crime and violence. The role of government here is clearly education and regulation.

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    11. Re:put a Democrat in the White House in 2012 by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      You mean civil liberties like privacy or the right to own firearms, or free speech, or freedom of religion?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  10. finally an excuse to bomb canada by alen · · Score: 5, Funny

    we tried to conquer your worthless country twice before, but you finally gave us an excuse for a third time

    1. Re:finally an excuse to bomb canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I dunno, man, didn't they burn down the White House last time?

    2. Re:finally an excuse to bomb canada by jd · · Score: 0

      Every other historic building in the US has either been demolished or is under threat of it. Including the Poe Museum. This allows Americans to complain they don't have any history (despite America being occupied by someone since 14K BC, had a European presence since the 7th C AD and actual European occupation since the 14th C AD). Clearly the RIAA wants to ensure a more consistent approach.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:finally an excuse to bomb canada by girlintraining · · Score: 2

      we tried to conquer your worthless country twice before, but you finally gave us an excuse for a third time

      Yeah, the previous two times were so successful, we figure we'll try it a third time, and in doing so trigger an international military response that'll result in the deaths of tens of millions... because Hollywood tells us to? Not. Likely.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:finally an excuse to bomb canada by LeadSongDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      You know, Canada never did get the thank-you note for that.

      --
      Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
    5. Re:finally an excuse to bomb canada by Pranadevil2k · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a win-win?

    6. Re:finally an excuse to bomb canada by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Maybe because (at least according to Wikipedia...my historical knowledge is bad) Britain did it instead?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  11. Damn China by Xipher · · Score: 1

    I noticed China got 8 pages and then some on that report, but no other country even has a single page dedicated to it. Yet how much shit gets manufactured over there and then shipped out all over the world?

    --
    I don't know everything.
    1. Re:Damn China by robot256 · · Score: 1

      Obviously, if China weren't producing infringing goods, there would be no demand and nobody else would produce them either. All we have to do is stop them and the problem will be solved! That is why they are the biggest problem.

    2. Re:Damn China by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      Actually, that sounds like a part of the report that I can actually agree with, at least in theory.

      I have problems with people who copy goods and then mass produce them for profit. That's a far cry from getting mad because some kid downloaded an mp3 file and used it to make an anime video.

  12. Best part ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the best part:

    The USTR report also confirms the Canadian government's view that the Special 301 exercise produces little more than a lobbying document on behalf of U.S. industry. The Canadian position, as described to a House of Commons committee in 2007 (and repeated regularly in internal government documents):

    In regard to the watch list, Canada does not recognize the 301 watch list process. It basically lacks reliable and objective analysis. It's driven entirely by U.S. industry. We have repeatedly raised this issue of the lack of objective analysis in the 301 watch list process with our U.S. counterparts.

    Which basically means the people writing this report are well known shills, who are predisposed to write something which is in favor of what the content industry wants.

    Glad to see these guys being told to bugger off if they don't have any facts. Far too much of American policy is dictated by lobbyists.

    Constantly listening to the content industry in the US bleating that Canada is a horrible evil country of people who violate copyrights gets tedious.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Best part ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best part for me is that US IS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND in this report...
      Hey.. I live in Canada, and US have x10 the population of here (at least), and you tell me I'm in the WATCHLIST, but U.S. isn't?
      Please include your own country next time.

    2. Re:Best part ... by Pewpdaddy · · Score: 1

      Now if only the other nations would grow a pair, and tell legislators that their picking a fight they can't win. Meanwhile other nations are rushing to pass similar legislation, and the US continues on their IP witch hunt. It's ongoing too, problem is the vast majority of Americans actually think that the government is actually looking out for them. Not to mention voters continue to vote in criminals. My state is likely the worst, our Governor pleaded the fifth some 50+ times during court hearings before even running for office. Yet somehow he's still in office.

    3. Re:Best part ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Didn't some Canadian government representatives *ask* the US to put Canada on that list? It had something to do with the embarrassment of being on the list helping push through some unpopular laws on the Canadian people.

    4. Re:Best part ... by djmurdoch · · Score: 3, Informative

      Didn't some Canadian government representatives *ask* the US to put Canada on that list?

      Yes, that came out in the Wikileaks cables. See the story here.

  13. That is only fair. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since the USA is in the watch list of most countries...

  14. WTO redux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's not about protecting anything but corporate profits.

    For example, when copyright was 1st conceived, the concept was to protect that individual's right to contract for the legitimate use or the press and distribution in order to ensure that the publisher was paying the actual author. In America, Jefferson argued that copyright should be restricted to 1/2 the average lifespan of a human in order to preserve the incentive to create new works as well as protect future generations from undue power that would otherwise accumulate in the hands of 'owners' of creative works. (Which is exactly what has happened.)

    Since then, corporations have found it convenient to buy proprietary works, contractually strangle authors and coerce (I mean lobby) legislation to extend the term of copyright to ridiculous lengths (in the U.S. it's life plus 70 years or 120 for anonymous works owned by Inc.) in order to further the monopolistic tendencies of business interests. This places corporate interests above those of the individual or society in general. (Thank Sonny Bono & Mickey Mouse)

    This is but one example of the 'service' so-called anti-piracy laws provide.

    1. Re:WTO redux by robot256 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nice sentiment, but you go too easy on the concept of copyright. Paraphrased from No Safe Harbor:

      Copyright was first conceived by Bloody Mary of England in 1557 as a means of censorship to persecute non-Catholics and political dissenters. It was her idea to give the printing monopoly to the London printers' guild and have anyone else caught with a printing press hanged by the state. After the proletariat took over Parliament, copyright was abolished in 1695. The publishers managed to twist the notion of copyright and get it reinstated in 1701 by saying that authors will "own" their works, even though only guild printers would have the right to print them and so the authors were still at their mercy.

      The notion that copyright could exist for the sake of anything other than publishers' profits did not even exist until the drafting of the United States Constitution, where it was a compromise after a heated debate. Jefferson argued that copyright shouldn't exist at all, and only took that position when a compromise was necessary. As a result, the Constitution states that copyright is to be used for the good of society, conspicuously (but not conspicuously enough, apparently) omitting the interests of *both* authors and publishers. This is the moral equivalent of saying "You are allowed to hit people only if it makes them feel better." Apart from a few masochists out there, by the letter of the law the right may exist but should *never* be exercised. We all know how well that turned out.

      So the entire concept of copyright is a reheated censorship scheme inherited from one of the most infamous dictators in history. Why anyone still thinks it's a good idea is a testament to the power of money, propaganda and groupthink.

    2. Re:WTO redux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Also be sure to note the phrase "Science and useful Arts." This means that useless arts are not protectable by any constitutional copyright law. So before any copyright infringement claim can be made, it must also be proven that the material at hand is useful.

      This almost makes me want to start a music distribution site. Then I remember that I get most of my music from playing it on youtube or from the authors' sites.

    3. Re:WTO redux by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Informative

      The concept of copyright is far older. Ancient Jewish Talmudic law and Roman law contain ideas about the rights of an author to control his works.

      The oldest legal case dates back to the 6th century in Ireland.

      http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/copyright.html

      English common law has long precedent in recognizing rights of authors.

      And your treatment of the Statute of Anne is rather unfair; it was a big advance in establishing the idea of public domain and eventually put an end to common law claims of perpetual ownership by authors.

    4. Re:WTO redux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about protecting anything but corporate profits.

      That's not true, it's about governments wanting to control the Internet.
      Governments by their nature simply can't exist in a world where they don't have control over every part of society. I can't think of any other part of my life the government doesn't regulate in some way. Organizations like the RIAA are simply a convenient tool the government is using to get that control.

      In 10 years the Internet will be as regulated and controlled as TV is today. The wild west days are coming to an end, it's just going to take them a little while to figure out how to do it and put the controls in place.

  15. Enemy #1 by msobkow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The US has declared wars on drugs, terrorism, copyright violations, crackers, and a whole host of other things.

    In doing so they've declared "war" on pretty much every nation in the world, including the very ones that they claim are friends and allies.

    So what can we conclude?

    The US is Enemy #1 to the world.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Enemy #1 by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      How can you tell when the US has no idea what to do about something?
      They declare war on it.
      Examples:
      War on Terror.
      War on Drugs.
      War on homelessness.
      ETC.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    2. Re:Enemy #1 by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The US government has declared wars on drugs, terrorism, copyright violations, crackers, and a whole host of other things.

      In doing so they've declared "war" on pretty much every nation in the world, including the very ones that they claim are friends and allies.

      So what can we conclude?

      The US government is Enemy #1 to the world.

      FTFY.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:Enemy #1 by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > The US has declared wars on drugs, terrorism, copyright violations, crackers, and a whole host of other things.

      Yup, gotta love when a government goes after inanimate objects or ideas instead of people actually causing the actual problem.

      The problem is Americans have no balls to repeal bad laws.

    4. Re:Enemy #1 by shiftless · · Score: 1

      No, it's more like the U.S. Government is enemy #1 to the people.

    5. Re:Enemy #1 by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The government is elected by the people.

      Stop pretending it's not your fault. You, the people, are the ones who put up with their schite.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    6. Re:Enemy #1 by Isaac+Remuant · · Score: 1

      and the solution seems to be to approve increased powers to kill the problem, be it in a literal or figurative sense.

      --
      "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
    7. Re:Enemy #1 by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      The government is elected by the people.

      That's the theory, anyway - however, it is a fact that the popular vote doesn't matter, as the will of the people can be overridden by the Electoral College, if they so see fit.

      If not a single American citizen voted in the November election this year, someone would still be "elected" President. Judging by the tone of your accusations you are not American, and thus are excused for parroting bumper stickers, as you obviously know fuck-all about how our electoral process actually works (as opposed to the image our government wants the world to have of it)..

      Stop pretending it's not your fault. You, the people, are the ones who put up with their schite.

      Yea, like how it's the people of Iraq's fault they were getting raped by Saddam, and it's the Iranian people's fault their nation is run by despots, and it's the North Korean people's fault that they starve while their government blows millions on failed missile programs, right?

      For the record, this one didn't vote for any of the evil fucks running the show, and sure as hell isn't 'putting up' with any of the authoritarian shit coming from the feds, so you can get the notion that all Americans are fat, lazy cattle right out of your ignorant head.

      Hard as it might be for someone not directly involved to understand, there are still a fair number of us fighting against the tyrannical oppression that is systematically replacing our much venerated Constitution.


      Not to mention, the guys I vote for never end up being elected, and I refuse to fall prey to the fallacy of voting for "the lesser of 2 evils." If they candidate is evil, they're not worth voting for. Period.

      In summation, fuck you and your baseless accusations. Oh, and have a nice day.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    8. Re:Enemy #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You clearly don't understand where the US government is at right now...

      Yes, the people elect some of the government officials out of a short list of people put up as options.

      Those options that are given to us to choose from are a list of people approved by the existing government who puts on a show of fighting with itself so as to hide the fact that they're all working for the same people with the same goals.

      In essence, no, we the people, are not the ones who "put up with their schite". We, the people of the US, are the ones who are fucked over hardest by their "schite" but have nothing we can do about it because they've brainwashed half the population, distracted the majority of the ones not brainwashed, and are able to easily silence those of us who are left after that.

    9. Re:Enemy #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is my vote for attorney general? Sheriff (FBI)? Labor secretary? How does my state kick out the people making the laws (a 4% voice in congress is fucking worthless)? What about judges? Where did I vote for them?

      The purpose of being a republic would be for independent governance by states with a limited Federal government. They broke that model but never gave us the option to vote for cabinet-level positions or Federal judges who implement and interpret the laws.

      They didn't amend the constitution but ignored it instead. Once the Supreme Court was filled with people willing to ignore the Constitution to keep or get their jobs, it was game over for that 'check and balance'.

      You may love everything the government does, but you are woefully ignorant if you think these people are elected or accountable.

    10. Re:Enemy #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Nothing we can do about it"

      Sorry buddy, you shit the bed, you sleep in it. You can't just shove your thumb up your ass and say "waah not my fault."

    11. Re:Enemy #1 by msobkow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This has been bugging me all day. It really pisses me off when people try to tell me what I mean. I know what I mean. I say what I mean.

      The fact that "patriotic Americans" don't like it is their problem. But watch those of them with mod points mod this psot into oblivion, because they think it's a "disagree" to vote things down. Which only proves my point...

      When I say the US has a navel gazing, we're superior, our law should trump all others attitude, I MEAN IT.

      Your government.
      Your banks.
      Your MPAA/RIAA.
      Your businesses.
      Your pharmacorps.
      And the list goes on...

      Your whole nation's MENTALITY is that you're superior.

      You are the very DEFINITION of a fascist country which engenders and encourages blind, national fervour and faith in the waving flag of the nation above all else.

      There are many in the country who do not feel that way, and understand what it means to cooperate with the world instead of trying to dominate it.

      But apparently there aren't enough of them VOTING.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    12. Re:Enemy #1 by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      This has been bugging me all day. It really pisses me off when people try to tell me what I mean. I know what I mean. I say what I mean.

      Well, then, we have common ground, as it pisses me off when assholes try to tell me what and how I think, because of where I'm from. So, you know, dose of your own medicine and all...

      The fact that "patriotic Americans" don't like it is their problem.

      I never said it wasn't my problem, get over yourself - I merely pointed out that blaming the people who live here is wrong; you should, as we Americans do, be directing your rage at the more-appointed-than-many-realize government that feels they have the right to do things their citizens don't agree with. FYI, so you know, the American Congress, who is chiefly responsible for a lot of the policies that are obviously pissing you off, has an approval rating of less than 20%.

      You are the very DEFINITION of a fascist country which engenders and encourages blind, national fervour and faith in the waving flag of the nation above all else.

      You... watch entirely too much television. Take it from someone who actually lives in the nation you're making assumptions about - the propaganda you see in media is far from the norm here. Most of the population are regular folks, just like you, trying to scrape by day to day without getting on the wrong side of assholes who would do us harm. Working full time jobs (sometimes multiple ones) and contributing to society doesn't leave a lot of time for flag waving.

      But apparently there aren't enough of them VOTING.

      Wouldn't matter if they did.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    13. Re:Enemy #1 by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't be complaining if no one listened to us. When it comes to walking all over other countries, the citizens of the victim countries are as much to blame as Americans are. Yes, we need to get our act together over here, but in the meantime we could use help from our allies by teaching our government it can't always get what it wants.

    14. Re:Enemy #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't really a lack of participation as much as it is a lack of choices. US elections, which I faithfully participate in hoping to someday have a reliable candidate to choose from, remind me of the episode on StarTrek where one character calmly explains that 'we are not the same. no we are completely different. You see he is red on the left side of face and whit on the right. I am obviously red on the right side an whit on the left. We have nothing in common!' (or something close to that. We can vote for a politician all we like but when the choice is between a terrible candidate and a horrible candidate can you really blame the voters? As long as big business can throw money at campaigns our elections a exercises in futility.

      Things are going to get much more ugly in this country before anything gets better.

    15. Re:Enemy #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its called American Exceptionalism. That they are the exception to all of the rest of the world. The hegemons and they dictate government and business policy. But when such is questions it had a god given, supreme right to change their minds... the world follows suit e.g. FCC, EPA etc.

  16. For once I disagree with Michael Geist.. by Sir_Sri · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't think we (as canadians) should be outraged. That's the wrong approach to this. We should be celebrating the fact that we have better rules than the americans.

    Imagine some politicians came out with a report about how awful it is that blacks can vote in this long list of countries, or how abhorrent is is that women could vote in some places, or how some countries *still* haven't enacted prohibition, or how terrible it must be for people living in those countries that have government healthcare. If you on one of those lists you don't get outraged, you can use it as proof positive that your system is working, and those idiots that wrote the report are living in the wrong century. Which, as with this report, they are.

    There's no point in trying to complain that some of their metrics are wrong or unfairly target the wrong groups. The whole concept is basically inverted, squabbling about the details gives the false impression that it can somehow be corrected with some tweaking of specifics.

    1. Re:For once I disagree with Michael Geist.. by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      I agree. It is a badge of honor to be on special report 301.

    2. Re:For once I disagree with Michael Geist.. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      It's not a particularly exclusive club, and the badge seems to be in plentiful supply, so the honor is not that great.

      Over half of the US trading partners are on the list.

      However Canada does get special recognition for being on the Priority Watch List. Buckle down now though because according to the report

      "These countries will be the subject of particularly intense bilateral engagement during the coming year."

    3. Re:For once I disagree with Michael Geist.. by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      My country is special - we're not on either watch list but got special mention because your drug companies hate our socialised medicine and reimbursement regime with the fire of a thousand suns (because our regulatory agency refuses to pay hundreds of dollars for a course of medication, let alone thousands).

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  17. Too long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did not listen.

  18. Spain is caving by langarto · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually I'm pissed off because Spain got off the list :-(

  19. Wish I had mod points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too true.

  20. Didn't wikileaks show that the Harper government.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... requested Canada be on that list for political reasons?

    Harper - just like George Bush, but less likable.

  21. We did that ages ago by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Funny

    The B-Ark idea was done centuries ago, however it was decided two were needed to get rid of all the undesirables. One was named Australia, the other America.

    There they would die an agonizing dead, removed from all culture essential to any human. Who knew the dregs would adapt to do without culture?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:We did that ages ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ... they would die an agonizing death, removed from all culture essential to any human.

      Originally, the British sent the healthy and educated criminals to Australia. Their priorities were imperialist expansion first, dumping the criminal element second. That's why the ninth ship, sent 2 years after the previous 8 ships, contained fertile women convicted of petty crimes and an 11 year-old girl sentenced to death (for 'armed' robbery against a 9 year-old girl). Thousands of Australians now trace their ancestry to that 11 year-old girl.

    2. Re:We did that ages ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They need a -1 Depressing mod :(

  22. countries should streisand effect this report by Dan667 · · Score: 2

    if you are not on special report 301 you need to figure out how to get on it. Make sure your citizens are protected from music and movie companies pressuring the US government to prop up their dying business model they refuse to change.

  23. The US will rely on IP for economic security by ravyne · · Score: 2

    That the US government wants the world to adopt their kind of strong policies should not surprise anyone. The facts are that the US doesn't have a wealth of natural resources, nor do we have the kind of cheap labor that attracts manufacturing. In the long game, all we really have is the ability to innovate for which we certainly don't corner the market; therefore, without the rest of the world adopting similar stances on IP, the US cannot hope to retain it's economic advantage over other countries. The same is true of other developed nations with dwindling resources and expensive labor, and will come to be of poorer nations with few resources--though they haven't come to expect the type of lives we lead in the states.

    I think there's a place for protecting intellectual and artistic expressions that exist in a tangible form, but it must reasonable, limited, and well-defined. People should be able to make their living by discovering new things, and by springing something novel and valuable into the world, but at the same time, doing so once should not guarantee lifetimes' of income for you, your children, and so on down the line, nor provide you with the means to prevent others from competing with or building upon your ideas.

    1. Re:The US will rely on IP for economic security by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      The problem with your thesis is that without some form of IP protection the ability to attract investment to a particular field becomes quite limited. After all, as a capitalist why should I invest my precious capital into a product development process that takes years and hundreds of megabucks to result in a product that is instantly available for free once it comes to market? In some cases it actually becomes available for free before it is released to market?

      Ultimately if you are going to put forth the idea that a nation should adopt development of new products as an economic strategy, you have to realize the success of that strategy will depend on how successful you are at monetizing those innovations.

      It isn't a question of an individual being able to live off an idea for a lifetime, it's a question of what the ROI for the society is.

      Your idea that a society must live through innovation and at the same time proposing reduced economic protection for the fruits of the innovation is simply a fundamentally inconsistent scenario.

    2. Re:The US will rely on IP for economic security by BootysnapChristAlive · · Score: 1

      The problem with your thesis is that without some form of IP protection the ability to attract investment to a particular field becomes quite limited.

      What? It didn't look to me like he said there shouldn't be any IP protection at all. Looks like he was arguing for reasonable copyright laws.

    3. Re:The US will rely on IP for economic security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The facts are that the US doesn't have a wealth of natural resources

      The US is one of the few nations in the world that could (it wouldn't be ideal, but we could) end trading with every other nation, be completely subsistent, and enjoy a reasonably high (not anywhere near as high as enjoy it now), standard of living.

      We most certainly have a wealth of natural resources. It's simply not economical to exploit them because they're so cheap coming from elsewhere.

    4. Re:The US will rely on IP for economic security by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      > Looks like he was arguing for reasonable copyright laws.

      He limited protection to expressions and ideas in tangible form, so anything that is in the form of data would not be protected.

      That's pretty much the end of copyright.

    5. Re:The US will rely on IP for economic security by ravyne · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think you've come to the wrong conclusion about what I was saying.

      The first paragraph I'm merely acknowledging what I see as the inevitability that any developed nation must realize: That without raw resources or cheap labor to offer up to the world economy, all that's really left is innovation. And if that nation intends to support itself on the fruit of that innovation, then they must have themselves, and lobby for others to adopt, IP laws that benefit those who hold the most. This is not something I'm arguing for myself, I just think it happens to be on the natural course of things if we desire to maintain the economic status quo.

      The second paragraph does advocate for reasonable protections that grant individuals, and their governments through taxation, to benefit from their efforts. The problem with the current system is that there are essentially no limits to the amount of control that the IP holder can exercise, nor any real limit to the length of time one can reap the benefit from their innovation. Current IP law is essentially a land-grab: it says "This thought is mine." and also "If you have to pass through my thought on the way to yours, I can collect a toll. If the price I want is too high, sorry, you and the world are denied your thought." Combined with lengthy protection terms, this allows patent holders to exercise too much control over future innovation.

      Patents should exist in some form in order to spur investments as you say, but likewise they should expire in a reasonable term so that they cannot be lorded over future innovation essentially indefinitely. This is a distinctly anti-capitalist idea, but I believe that, at some point, society as a whole has indeed paid all that's due to the inventor, and their invention should at that point essentially become public domain.

      I don't take this stance as an outsider. The kind of work I do is digital, and therefore solely protected by IP laws, anyone can replicate the fruit of my labor bit-by-bit, with no real capital cost. I choose not to employ DRM, and to instead encourage people to support me by providing them with a great product, and in the future, supporting services. I *should* be able to seek recompense should someone illicitly distribute or clone my work, but I don't care to have a bludgeon that can be used to prevent those who might do a better job than I, or who might take my ideas in a distinct direction, from doing so.

      In college I knew a guy who belonged to the family who's ancestor had invented the modern ball-point pen. He's a really nice guy. I wouldn't begrudge him or anyone else the good fortune of being born into wealth. That such a simple but ubiquitous invention could bring wealth to a family is what should happen when the system works. On the other hand, it seems a little ludicrous that royalties and licenses still flow several generations on.

      Also keep in mind that all of IP is not some god-given right of inventive minds. It's a social contract in which society at large agrees to play by certain rules in order to spur innovation and investment. If one side abuses the other, they'll take their ball and go home--this is not the exclusive right of IP holders.

    6. Re:The US will rely on IP for economic security by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      The thing is you are taking the position than it is a national imperative that we focus on innovation and at the same time we weaken our IP rights.

      That is not a recipe for success. It's fundamentally inconsistent as a policy aimed at maintaining a prosperous economy.

      As far as some of your other statements - there seem to be some naivety. For example the period of exclusivity granted by a patent is 20 years. It doesn't give you a multigeneration hold on anything. Depending on the nature of the invention it may actually be to short to take advantage of. I've seen it on a personal basis - the company I worked for developed a technology for producing amorphous metal alloys which had novel magnetic properties and patented the invention. They then spent the next 20 years trying to find economic uses for it, and eventually found enough to recover about half their original R&D investment. Competitors however came into the market after the original patent expired and because of their lower costs including offshore labor and no need for a large R&D department drove the original inventors out of the market. Now they original company no longer has a cutting edge R&D organization.

      As far as copyrights I'm sympathetic to those complaining about the current term. However if you are going to build an economy on the fruits of such a thing why not maximize it? The real truth of the matter is that it is quite unusual for an individual to own an important copyright - such things are generally owned by corporations who have invested a lot of development money into the property. The amount that they can invest in the future is solely dependent on past returns.

      Finally, anti-capitalist ideas are distinctly out of place when you are talking about the economic success of a nation. They don't work, and will lead to failure of that society.

    7. Re:The US will rely on IP for economic security by ravyne · · Score: 1

      There is no dichotomy because I'm not endorsing that we should, as a nation, focus our economy on innovation. I think it's inevitable that a national government with few exportable resources and an expensive labor force must seek to shore up its ability to monetize IP, yes, but I don't personally advocate that this is a good thing. Without goods extracted from the earth here, or made by US factories, all that's left to offer the rest of the world is innovation and services. Since services are subject to competition from sources that we can't compete with cost-wise, the government is pinning its hope on IP. This is an entirely logical conclusion to come to if the goal is maintaining the status quo of economic advantage over other countries, but again, that's not what I personally am advocating as policy here.

      As for your example, I can sympathize that some R&D may not pay off immediately, but I don't think that patents should be a hedge against making a poor investment, being ahead of your times, or simply speculating. These activities are risky. Likewise, I'm not convinced that incidental discoveries are something entities should profit from (though I grant they're probably impossible to distinguish from non-incidental discoveries, or that it's possible to predict all discoveries). I don't have a suggestion as to what the term should be, though I do think that a one-size-fits-all term is not appropriate across industries.

      I'm not convinced that a strictly-capitalist view of things is the right way to go. I'll grant that it does many things well, and that the opposite extreme is certainly not successful at industrial scale, but it also fails entirely at other things. Capitalism fails entirely when profits cannot be measured in dollars and cents, for example. It also tends to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer. To say that capitalism is the only way to success is true only in as much as capitalism defines for itself that success means economic success. I'm no socialist hippie, but a lot of pure-capitalist logic is quite circular in nature.

    8. Re:The US will rely on IP for economic security by Zzzoom · · Score: 0

      In the long game, all you really have is a big and extremely expensive military force. Innovation is mostly done by corporations that don't give a crap about anything but profits, and the fact that you can't stop China from copying absolutely everything shows how useless your IP bullying will be in the end.

  24. untermenschen and Endless Enemies by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    Perhaps more correctly the unconstitutionally hijacked US government is Enemy #1 to the world. Average US "citizens" are more like Hitler's untermenschen... In 1984, Wall Street Journal's international editor, Jonathan Kwitney, documented another "Enemy#1" version effect of US policies in "Endless Enemies, the Making of an Unfriendly World."

  25. fire with fire by pat+sajak · · Score: 2

    Canada should patent the color blue, the letter "n", and the smell of waffles.. then put the US at the top of their piracy watchdog list.

  26. still... by 101percent · · Score: 1

    Is there any legit place where you can purchase non-drm lossless albums using GNU/Linux?

    1. Re:still... by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      Of course.
      Here is just one:
      http://shop.kilorecords.net/

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    2. Re:still... by neilsnat · · Score: 2

      Also, Bandcamp, Magnatune. Although I have had some annoyances with having to create temporary email addresses (I am *not* joining Paypal, ugh!) for payment using Bandcamp.

    3. Re:still... by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      If I didn't know any better, I'd say you're deliberately setting the bar at a level which no mainstream provider will meet, presumably so that you can claim that this is why you pirate. Newsflash: you can't buy non-drm lossless albums with fucking Windows or OS X either, so don't go touting this as some sort of proprietary vs open thing. Oh, and even if you get "lossless" files from Bittorrent, the originals weren't.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  27. in canada we pirate american software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because your a bunch of militant patent trolling shit heads

  28. It's a U.S. report on piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would you care about a Somalian report on law enforcement?
     
      Or an Israli report on moderating responses?
     
      Or a Chinese report on internet freedom?
     
      The only reason anyone cares is because the U.S. doesn't give a crap about justice and is an imperialist threat. Their diplomatic core just gets a memo saying "escalate anger" and it affects extraditions, immigration, trade, law enforcement, weapons shipments, trade embargos, and eventually bombings. That's what the U.S. looks like these days.

  29. Stupid logic. by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

    I'm not defending the report at all. There is no reason why some of the countries listed show up. However, from that, it is a huge leap to assume that contries are simply on the list because they are poor. There probably is a high corrilation between poor contries and piracy. So, just maybe the list which names countries with high rates of piracy used some sort of metric that measured.... piracy without taking into account the economy of that country?

    Really, the article was written more poorly than the average slashdot comment. I think it should have equal weight.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  30. We were warned by AntiBasic · · Score: 0

    They told me if I voted for McCain, we'd see an administration increasingly beholden to Big Media interestests... and they were right!

  31. A note to the US Trade Representative: by bmo · · Score: 1

    So, fine, blame Guatemala.

    Every single country on this list should introduce an initiative to encourage Free Software on every possible machine. This will guarantee "piracy" ends.

    --
    BMO http://goodbye-microsoft.com/

  32. Dear U.S. Trade Representative by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1

    FUCK YOU.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  33. Obligatory IT Crowd Reference by lazarus · · Score: 1

    Piracy Warning

    My favourite part of the referenced document:

    "The United States remains concerned about the availability of rights of appeal in Canada’s administrative process for reviewing the regulatory approval of pharmaceutical products, as well as limitations in Canada’s trademark regime."

    The US is concerned about our rights of appeal. That's awesome! American foreign policy at its finest.

    --
    I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
  34. With apologies to Matt and Trey... by Petersko · · Score: 1

    "America! Fuck you!"

  35. Malaysia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Malaysia gets a +1 for good efforts in TFA, but what actually happened is that recently the M'sia government has installed wide spread monitoring tools to censor the Internet for unwanted content (blocking anti-Islam and anti-government). The side effects of having such tools is that it makes it a whole lot easier to fight piracy.

    So the think-about-the-copyright movement is actually a cover-up for them setting up a start of a Malaysian version of the 'Chinese firewall.'

  36. Neocolonialism! Nice word! by erroneus · · Score: 1

    I've been ranting with increasing frequency about the way the US's last export is being managed and supported.

    Of all the things we have exported, the last on our list is "intellectual property" and with good reason. Everything else is a physical thing and can be controlled by putting it in a box and giving it to a second party only after payment is secured. But intangable property... imaginary property... intellectual priperty... whatever you want to call it, depends exclusively on the rule and enforcement of law. And the exports are going out before the law is there to protect/enforce/inflict it on other governments.

    Looks to me like this situaiton wasn't well thought out. Seems to me that before we ran out of real exports, someone should have said "uh... what are we gonna sell now?" (I'm pretty sure lots of people did... just not the ones contributing the most to politicians.) And now here we are...

    At the moment, it's kind of hard to imagine the US making war on other countries because of intellectual property... well maybe not... but in the case of the downed drone over Iran... makes me think we are just going to end up exporting MORE intellectual property into "enemy hands."

  37. Well, Uncle Sam by TheRealGrogan · · Score: 1

    You can kiss this big white Canadian ass. Put us on whatever "list" you wish to, we will not be intimidated.

  38. Americans should be ashamed of themselves by initialE · · Score: 1

    Number 1, for trying to impose american law on the world. That's the act of a school bully making people his bitch because he can beat them up. Number 2, for electing such bullies to be their leaders! I mean, why! I doubt this list would embarrass any country other than the USA, as it exposes the level of bigotry and blindness of their people.
    Read this comment, then flamebait it to hell. Still not posting anon.

    --
    Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
  39. Dmca for canada will not happen...get over it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that law won't fly
    no one will pay attention to it and they can't arrest 5 -8 million people for it
    AND on the day it becomes law word has it over 1 million will turn themselves in

    thats 100,000 dollars per convict to look after....DO THE MATH. CAN'T happen and the charter of rights and freedoms spells out laws that affect too many cant be legal.

  40. here is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    8 million pirates
    100,000 dollars a year to put us in prisons

    20000 fine and you tell the judge to go f himself and take the time instead of the fine
    6.7 years
    6.7 million times 8 million ....THEY don't even have plans for this many prisons and the economy tax revenue wise cant handle it....

    THIS is the way to fight the system
    Everyone walk up to the police station and turn yourselves in and when they repeal the law we walk.
    THEN YOU CAN BE SURE THEY WILL NEVER TRY IT AGAIN.

    1. Re:here is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You first.

  41. Rich men have no music. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ask the Greats where they got their inspiration from.

    Dylan stole records and spent his time in listening booths as a youth. He is unabashed when adopting these songs as his own. He still currently does, but no copyrights are owned on them.

    Music belongs to the impoverished and is sung and created by the impoverished.

    There is a truism: Rich men have no music.

    Another truism: Rich men can't read.

    Another: Rich men don't pray.

    We are dealing with godless bloodsuckers, black coats.

  42. Obligatory Canadion Bacon joke by cpghost · · Score: 1

    Stop Piracy pronto, or we'll level Toronto!

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  43. I call BS by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    A US movie can do moderate or even poor box office domestically and the stu^H^H^Hcorporations don't care too much because they know they will make their money back and return a tidy profit in the overseas markets, especially in Asia.

    The trouble with broad-brushing is that one tends to coat oneself in the process.

  44. javaDeveloperCounter --; by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This legal battle just made me a former Java developer.

  45. On Entertainement by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

    On the subject of entertainment, why exactly should we support an industry that provides stuff we don't really need? Actually stuff that we'd be better of without.

    You're an artist in need of a few bob? Go on and perform and entertain like all the rest of us do. You're not that special. Don't expect some artificial, non-natural mechanism to be your source of everlasting income.

    You have an urge to produce films and in need of multi-millions? Downsize buddy and keep your message clean and simple. Special effects are expensive and don't add anything to a story built up well.

    Sure, I'm not completely fair towards educational authors. But as a society we should restrict support to parasites like music and film corporations. Considering huge sums delivered to your doorstep as a matter of fact is plain and simple a commie thing.

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
  46. U.S. doesn't recognize others' food trademarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Food's Biggest Scam: The Great Kobe Beef Lie
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryolmsted/2012/04/12/foods-biggest-scam-the-great-kobe-beef-lie/

    Food's Biggest Scam, Part 2: "Domestic" Kobe And Wagyu Beef
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryolmsted/2012/04/13/foods-biggest-scam-part-2-domestic-kobe-and-wagyu-beef/

    Kobe Beef Scam, Part 3: Why The U.S. Government Wants You To Buy Fake Foods
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryolmsted/2012/04/14/kobe-beef-scam-part-3-why-the-u-s-government-wants-you-to-buy-fake-foods/

  47. USA: Bastion of Law by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Yes because we should all adopt sane laws that allow for multinational corporations to sue an 80 year old grandmother into oblivion because her grand kid downloaded the latest Britney Spears album. Because 2.8 Billion dollars is a just and fair punishment for 24 beautiful songs. Not to mention basically infinite copyright (its what? 125 years + life of owner now? That is until they lobby to make it even longer).

    The whole thing is so insane it angers my blood. Every time I see a stupid bought and paid for politician trying to defend this garbage I just want to punch him in the face. It is just so against common sense, it boggles my mind how this is even an issue.

    For shame if Canada buckles to US pressure.