White House Cracks Down On Piracy & Counterfeiting 323
GovTechGuy writes "On Tuesday the White House made a show of rolling out an expansive new strategy to combat online piracy and counterfeit goods, to the delight of industry groups. The plan emphasizes targeting foreign websites that host pirated software and movies and increasing the number of investigations and prosecutions by the FBI, FTC, and Justice Department. Here is the complete plan, introduced by the new 'copyright czar,' Victoria Espinel."
CounterPiracy? (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's keep on expanding the "ease of use" for anonymous p2p networks.
p2p is the ENTIRE future of our progress as humanity.
Governments/Corporations (and Government, Inc.orporations) have no idea what will happen when nanoscale-printers arrive, USB Plug&Play Ready.
Think about pirating processors... monitors... wireless antenna designs... turbochargers... medicines... perfumes... textiles... Rolex watches... solar panels... more nano-printers.
The future belongs to us.
Let's work on the p2p networks.
=)
Re:Fooled us (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, what did we really expect when the Copyright Czar position was created?
I read somewhere (I can't remember where now) that when the US realizes that a problem is un-solvable, its final response is to appoint a Czar to take the blame for the problem remaining unsolved.
Works for me!
Re:The people lose again (Score:3, Interesting)
Why can't record and movie companies follow that example?
They don't understand that as long as people are having fun the money will roll towards them. What kills me is 10 years ago Paramount was trying to take down screen grabs of Star Trek from fan sites.
Enforcement is a detail - we care about the Rules (Score:5, Interesting)
While I think it is unfortunate that they have legitimized the phrase "intellectual property", it's actually a bit of a relief to see them focusing on piracy and counterfeit goods. I never had any expectation that any major official entity subject to political forces would act to weaken copyright or other "intellectual property" rules, since most commercial content creators want the maximum possible revenue from their work (regardless of broader social consequences to society and creativity). The general mindset is that creativity is fueled by the profit motive, so the more profit the more progress we will see in the arts and sciences. And while this is demonstrably NOT universally true (see open source, as just one example of many) it IS true that vast revenues are generated by copyright laws supporting commercial endeavors and the resources contributed by people so benefiting are of much more use to political campaigns than those who are creating for motivations OTHER than money.
Given that reality, Creative Commons and Open Source style licensing are probably the only practical means of preserving any of the benefits of what used to be the public domain going forward. With the courts suggesting that Congress can yank things OUT of the public domain even after they are placed there, it becomes clear that the best way forward is the "opt-in" community approach. This means, of course, that the body of work available for creative purposes outside of a commercial framework will be drastically reduced. However, the current social and legislative trends suggest that it's all we can hope for. Given that reality, those who prefer this environment can work to improve the tools and content so released in order to build up our own "subculture" over time. If it appeals to enough people, it may eventually function more or less independently of the commercial world without needing commercial content to fall into the public domain (indeed, in some sense this has been the practical situation for virtually the entire lifespan of everyone on this site anyway - how many of us remember any work released commercially in our lifetime that is now public domain?)
However, even this proposed subculture can exist only if it is not thwarted by legislative efforts. So long as works CAN be used without commercial payment, free and open source culture can survive as long as there are people willing to make it survive. My greatest concern is that Big Content will try to push for laws making ANY content available without charge subject to "unfair competition" rules - i.e. make it impossible for anyone to do ANYTHING with ANY content, regardless of license, without some form of concrete financial or goods based payment changing hands between creator and user. This might be phrased as the "Fair Compensation Act" intended to "ensure that content creators are compensated for their efforts" and "able to make a living". Free ANYTHING may be branded as "socialist", "communist", "anti-business" and "un-American". I have heard this feeling expressed - that nothing should be free; every product of any kind should be bought and sold in the open market to ensure fair compensation from users to creators. The existence of ANY free content is unfair competition and a dis-incentive to today's creative minds. Open source software prompts this opinion occasionally - for example, the "market destroying effects" of things like free compilers has ruined the livelihoods of people who might have made commercial tools. If that attitude ever makes it into the letter of the law, we are in Big Trouble - THAT is what we really need to watch for.
Fooled? (Score:1, Interesting)
Did anyone expect anything different from EITHER political party? Was there a major candidate (or for that matter ANY candidate) advocating weaker enforcement and weaker copyright laws?
Also, given the world situation and US situation at the current time, the cold truth is that on a grand economic scale it probably IS better financially for the US if strict copyright and IP rules are globally enforced. Lord knows there is precious little other than that that could induce anyone to send money the US's way - we're hell bent on getting actual goods production overseas.
Re:The people lose again (Score:3, Interesting)
Most people might read the back cover, maybe the first chapter, read a few reviews online, and decide. Especially if they've read other works by that author. But the whole book?
Yes, most people. See, that is the key. Most people don't have enough free time to sit down and read an entire book. But the thing is, they don't stop you if you read the entire book. Same thing with an album or DVD, few people are going to sit down and watch/listen to the entire thing, or same thing with games, but why stop them? Our entire economy is based on convenience, I have broadband because its more convenient than dial-up, I've got a car because its a whole lot easier to drive 15 miles to work everyday rather than walk those 15 miles, I've got a refrigerator rather than buying food everyday because its easier, etc. I could probably save money if I bought a modem for my laptop and subscribed to a dirt-cheap dial-up service, but it would be a lot less convenient.
You would gain more sales than "losses" according to the *AA if you could watch an entire movie or listen to an entire album before you purchased it. The problem with 30 second samples is that it doesn't reflect the entire song. The -vast- majority of my iTunes purchases are songs that I've been listening to for a while on YouTube, I don't go out and buy obscure albums without knowing what the songs are. And unless the album is at a steep discount when compared to the songs I like individually, I won't buy an entire album.
I like certainty in my purchases. Why should I spend the price for a decent meal on an album unless I know for sure I will like it? Does this strategy mean I buy less music? Yes. Does this strategy mean that I spend more on my music? Yes. Using YouTube and other sites with music on it I will generally end up finding more artists that I really like, that I will buy their albums and go to see concerts, buy merchandise, etc.
I'm going to end up spending less money if I buy a few sub-par albums I don't really like when compared to one album that I really love so I go to the concerts.
Re:The people lose again (Score:5, Interesting)
Student loans provided by the Federal Gov. have the same effect as mortgage loans provided by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae- they raise the price of the underlying product. Just like cheap credit inflated the cost of housing, gov. provided loans are inflating the cost of education. In addition, educational institutions like to tempt students with the promise of high paying jobs (just like that house will be worth more in the future!), leading many students into oppressive debt burdens. Unlike many home loans, however, default on a student loan is a lot more problematic.
If education had less government subsidy, it would probably be cheaper or at least more cost effective. Everything the government subsidizes to "help the people" distorts markets by raising the price or over production. It can also encourage other risky behaviors. [minyanville.com] This is not to be confused with long lead time gov. led efforts, such as basic research, environmental studies and the like, in which a "market" either would not exist or would be dysfunctional due to lack or participants. Government clearly has important roles. Providing student loans is not one of them.
Buy the textbook or fail the class. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:CounterPiracy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Some people have already been thinking about the legal implications of 3D printers. You might be interested in the following paper:
"The Intellectual Property Implications of Low-Cost 3D Printing [ed.ac.uk]"
Re:The White House is full of wimps (Score:2, Interesting)
One anonymous aide said McChrystal seized control of the war "by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House."
So we have two Anonymous Cowards calling officials at the White House wimps. Coincidence? I think not.
Re:Not more manufacturing crap (Score:1, Interesting)
Almost everything that is sitting here at my desk at work has the words "MADE IN CHINA" written on it. Where are all those products "MADE IN THE USA" that are supposedly being manufactured kept because, if given the choice, I'd surely buy them over this junk.
Not surprised. (Score:3, Interesting)
It is more and more apparent, that President Obama and his Administration, with his "Hope and Change" machinations are really "More of the Same, and Much Much Worse!" (TM)
With a little bit more of an expanded view, however, it is really Democrats and Republicans that are "More of the Same, and Much Much Worse!"
Both of the two major parties need a severe wake-up call, namely, less and less of them should be voted into office to the point where it starts messing with their power base, campaign financing and the like. That's really the only thing that will get their attention and start governing "...for the people..." and not "... for the multi-national corporations that give me nice fat campaign donation checks".
Re:The people lose again (Score:3, Interesting)
Just to clarify, I don't deserve a dime from any work my dad created; I had nothing to do with it.
I honestly don't have any idea what is fair; on one hand I think the lifetime of the artist sounds good, with maybe the possibility of a one time only extension of...10 years? by the artists heirs.
On the other hand, I think that might be too long; how about 10 years from creation, with the artist able to renew it for another 10 years at a time during their lifetime, with heirs only getting a cut during the time after the artist dies until the last renewal runs out?
But this disney crap is ridiculous; what my dad did in the late 50's and 60's I think he should still get any money generated from it, he created it, it's his. If Walt Disney was still alive, I would probably feel the same way about his work.
My dad decided to make a deal with the Swedish company, and got about 5% of their CD run free to sell on the rare occasions when he still performs publicly; it works for him.
Which brings up a question; every time copyright comes up, someone always says that musicians should expect to get their income from public performances... what about those who aren't capable of making public performances due to age or disability? What sort of pension should the government give to creators of original work, when their ability to create leaves them (if they are no longer able to profit from their past work, that is).