Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Piracy The Internet United States Your Rights Online

DOJ Ramping Up Crackdown On Copyright-Infringing Sites 366

Posted by Soulskill
from the let-joe-pesci-sort-'em-out dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Obama administration is just getting started in its mission to shut down rogue websites that illegally share copyrighted content such as movies and music. The White House's intellectual property czar, Victoria Espinel, said Monday that the Internet community should 'expect more of that' pre-emptive action as the administration ramps up its efforts to combat online copyright infringement — especially the illegal copying and sale of pharmaceutical drugs."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DOJ Ramping Up Crackdown On Copyright-Infringing Sites

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Nice... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 06, 2010 @03:50PM (#34463692)
    Do you know why it costs more locally? Just like chip makers have runs of "the good stuff" and the items that won't work at the original intended speed that they then mark as a lower speed and sell for less, drug makes have batches that meet local regulations and ones that don't. If a batch doesn't meet US federal regulations it is sent to some country where it DOES meet the regulations. This may be fine for you if, for example, your needs only require your pill be within 30% tolerance of the labeled amount. But if you required 95% tolerance - you would have to pay more for it. Some countries have higher purity / tolerance standards than the US. Buy brand name drugs from there: you'll find they are more expensive than in the US. It is all about how much it costs to make and which batches meet the requirements of which place.
  • Re:Next up (Score:4, Informative)

    by XxtraLarGe (551297) on Monday December 06, 2010 @04:17PM (#34464098) Journal

    They ALL voted for the (un)Patriot act - liberals, conservatives, libertarians, male and female...

    Uh, not all [wikipedia.org].

  • Re:Nice... (Score:3, Informative)

    by crypticedge (1335931) on Monday December 06, 2010 @04:37PM (#34464398)

    Do you know why it costs more locally? Just like chip makers have runs of "the good stuff" and the items that won't work at the original intended speed that they then mark as a lower speed and sell for less, drug makes have batches that meet local regulations and ones that don't. If a batch doesn't meet US federal regulations it is sent to some country where it DOES meet the regulations. This may be fine for you if, for example, your needs only require your pill be within 30% tolerance of the labeled amount. But if you required 95% tolerance - you would have to pay more for it. Some countries have higher purity / tolerance standards than the US. Buy brand name drugs from there: you'll find they are more expensive than in the US. It is all about how much it costs to make and which batches meet the requirements of which place.

    Incorrect. The US has higher drug costs because we have trade agreements with most other countries that states we will foot the entire cost of research and development for any drug made by US companies, even if the research happens overseas. Thats why you can get some drugs in Canada for 5% of the total cost of the same drug in the US. It has nothing to do with the purity, and entirely due to those trade agreements.

    If people really cared about the cost of medicine in the US that would be one of the first things we called to get repealed, but it shows how little the average citizen knows when you see statements like yours in place.

  • Re:Next up (Score:5, Informative)

    by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Monday December 06, 2010 @05:15PM (#34465036)
    I think part of the problem is that DOJ is considering counterfit drugs and unauthorised MP3 downloads as exactly the same thing, when in reality they are very different matters.
  • Re:viva le WIKILEAKS (Score:4, Informative)

    by CookieForYou (1945108) on Monday December 06, 2010 @05:29PM (#34465292)

    While the Obama administration may be "liberal" when it comes to social service programs (and he's a centrist by global standards), that is really the extent of it. He is FAR to the right of most world leaders on "law and order", war, business regulations, government structures, etc.

    The fact that the republicans are even further right doesn't decry "liberalism" but rather just points out the fact that our "democrats" are further right of most countries "conservatives" on most topics, and far from being "communists" (which is just inane, when that is trotted out).

    The "liberal" viewpoint is to support communal goods and individual liberty over corporate good and profit EVERY TIME. This is a conservative ideology, even if our democrat centrist (again, by global standards) government is in favor of it.

  • Re:Next up (Score:4, Informative)

    by HiThere (15173) <charleshixsn&earthlink,net> on Monday December 06, 2010 @05:43PM (#34465522)

    It's not a meme. It's a design feature of the system. This would not be true if the winning candidate was required to get a majority of the votes, but as only a plurality of the votes is required, voting for a third party is, essentially, saying "Neither of the two leading contenders is enough better than the other that I care to choose between them." And as only a plurality is required, one of them will win. Possibly with only 20% of the vote, but all that's required is that their closest opponent not get more than 19.99999% for that to suffice.

    Personally I favor Condorcet voting, but Instant Runoff is nearly as good and much easier to explain.

  • by Nadaka (224565) on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:09PM (#34465830)

    The only problem with that assertion is that between insurance and out of pocket expenses the US is already paying more per capita in health care than all those socialist countries for services that for the average consumer are worse.

Do not simplify the design of a program if a way can be found to make it complex and wonderful.

Working...