Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government

White House Holding Piracy Summit 268

Posted by kdawson
from the meet-the-new-boss dept.
DesScorp writes in to let us know about a White House piracy summit, which is going on this afternoon. Judging by the press accounts, the sort of intellectual property criminals they are interested in are large-scale DVD bootleggers, not individual downloaders. "Hollywood once again demonstrates its close ties to Washington DC, regardless of who is in power, with a White House summit on piracy to be attended by the top executives in Hollywood, as well as the music industry. Vice President Joe Biden will be leading the summit to discuss organized cooperation between the federal government and the entertainment industry on all matters of piracy. Also at the summit will be the Obama Administration's new Copyright Czar, Victoria Espinal. The summit comes after Congress has earmarked $30 million dollars of taxpayer funds for anti-piracy efforts." According to one attendee's tweet, the press was kicked out of the meeting around 20:45 GMT.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

White House Holding Piracy Summit

Comments Filter:
  • by nebaz (453974) on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @05:57PM (#30450586)

    As much as I hate the idea that the Federal Government is in the interest of helping the RIAA, it seems that "intellectual property" is just about the only thing left that our country exports. I can understand thinking that it should be a national economic priority if you think in those terms. That doesn't address the reality of the "value" of said property, or its constitutional justification, however.

  • Re:oh joy. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by causality (777677) on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @06:13PM (#30450842)

    yeah that organized crime commited by pirates is really bad for your nation.

    It is if your nation makes billions of dollars developing movies and music. Anyone find it interesting that we routinely run massive trade deficits with China but stand mute while their Government tacitly condones piracy on an industrialized scale? As much as I despise the mafia there are real people working in these industries. It's a safe assumption they don't want to work for free. Can't we find some balance on this issue somewhere between "some teenagers downloaded Britney Spears, lock 'em up!" and "information wants to be free"?

    We will have that balance the moment our social and governmental attitude towards the media companies consists of: "adapt your business model to the 21st century and create an online product that people want to buy, or go bankrupt. Your choice." Until then we're trying to make sure that buggy whip manufacturers still have jobs after the advent of the automobile.

  • Re:Well (Score:3, Interesting)

    by yincrash (854885) on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @06:28PM (#30451032)
    tbh, it'd be nice if even creator rights advocates were there at least. mpaa and riaa do not truly have the content creators best interests at heart
  • Re:!change (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @06:47PM (#30451256) Homepage Journal

    Ah yes, a governor who did a lot for her state

    Citation please.

  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @06:52PM (#30451330)

    I can't wait to hear all of the partisans who rightfully complained about Dick Cheney's energy task force come out of the woodwork to tell us why this is "different".

    Your wish, it is granted:

    Judging by the press accounts, the sort of intellectual property criminals they are interested in are large-scale DVD bootleggers, not individual downloaders.

    Well thanks for clearing that up! This copyright summit would never harm you, citizen! It's utterly different than any that have come before because it only goes after lrge scale infringers, or so the spin goes! Ignore the fact Hollywood is attending and we know what they always want.

    I'll bet if this were Bush's (or any Republican for that matter) copyright summit, we wouldn't see such a helpful sentence explaining how what these guys are doing is all for the good.

    Sorry, but I didn't like large scale expansion of copyright under any administration no matter how much you try to handwave and explain Democrats are all OK in this regard.

  • Re:!change (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BobMcD (601576) on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @07:22PM (#30451682)

    He could have done a lot of my favorite things on the first day, without the approval of anyone:

    1) End the wars and bring home the troops

    2) Fire everyone in the Department of Education, or any other Executive Department

    3) End the NSA domestic spying programs and the CIA espionage

    4) Close Gitmo

    5) Pardon everyone in a Federal Prison for drug possession

    There are many, many more. In fact most of what Bush did was done via abuse of Executive power. It is entirely possible to wield it in a good way as well as a bad.

    I'm not sure what parts of that are 'swirly eyed', but none of it is outside the realm of possibility.

  • Re:!change (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MightyMartian (840721) on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @07:58PM (#30452088) Journal

    I've never met a Palin lover that wasn't either pondering what getting inside her pants would be like, or just simply liked the idea of a fellow religious zealot being one bullet away from the Oval Office.

    Huckabee would certainly have been the more logical choice if you were looking for a VP with at least some skills, but I don't think he was sufficiently uber-religious to get past the hump McCain needed to. McCain was deeply unpopular with the various brands of social conservatives in the GOP. He largely got in because he was simply the last man standing. Let's remember here, too, that early on, a lot of GOP strategists thought they were going to be facing off against Clinton, and that had been the common wisdom for a couple of years. McCain vs. Clinton would have been a much different dust up, and certainly a more conventional kind of campaign. But when it became clear that Obama was going to beat Clinton, the whole game changed and McCain's strategists grew very conservative in their maneuvering, and actively sought out someone who could both deliver the Evangelicals and other related conservatives, but not overshadow McCain himself (which Huckabee most certainly would have).

    I don't think anyone expected the kind of response to Palin, particular in the McCain camp. I mean, really, a running mate is just, well, a running mate. They get some attention, but all in all they're the sideshow, relegated to a level of importance below the candidate's wife, kids and pets. But Palin become a phenomena in and of herself. She certainly managed to rally the faithful, who were (and still are) quite happy to ignore the fact that the woman was woefully inadequate to the job. I expect that over the next couple of years that will change to some degree, but to be honest, I can't imagine the GOP flinging her at Obama. They'll be looking at Huckabee again, and its probably better that he didn't get tarred with being McCain's running mate.

    By the way, this is the same logic that Obama applied to picking Biden, as opposed to Clinton.

  • Republican? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mollog (841386) on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @08:06PM (#30452180)
    The Republican party in the north, the party of Lincoln, was Fiscally Conservative, pro-business, Politically Moderate, and Socially Moderate. They were certainly liberal in the sense that they liberated the black slaves.

    When Texas Democratic President Lyndon Johnson signed the voting rights act in 1964, he remarked that it was going to deliver the deep South to the Republican Party for a generation. He underestimated.

    The deep South segregationists that now control the Republican Party are only Socially Conservative. They are Politically Liberal (intruding into people's personal decisions) and Fiscally Spendthrifts or corrupt. Newt Gingrich and his fellow 'Movement Republicans' are not actually conservative at all. And I would hold that they are hardly Republican.

    Ron Paul is truly Politically Conservative, Fiscally Conservative and Socially Conservative. There are few others like him, but they exist. Joel Hefley of Colorado, perhaps Chuck Hegel of Nebraska. Governor 'Butch' Otter of Idaho. The vast majority of the Republican party are simply pro-business (or more accurately, pro-corporation) proto-fascists. Opportunists. Thieves. Corrupt.

    The Democratic Party has evolved into an aimless, populist mob. They currently have no guiding principles. They seem to exist only in reaction to big business and the corrupting influence of money.

    Getting back to the article; it seems that piracy has a lot to do with intellectual property similar to software programs. If a person creates a work, it would be better if that person could maintain control over its provenance. This encourages continued production of similar work. China, India and other Wild West type newly minted capitalistic systems care little for hypothetical rights such as intellectual property. With good reason, it's unenforceable.

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Working...