DOJ Ramping Up Crackdown On Copyright-Infringing Sites

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."

Next up

[Dyinobal]

Christ what next declaring another stupid war, like 'the war on drugs'. How long before they start to censor sites with political views not approved by the government, or blocking sites deemed 'risks to national security'. I really get tired of my country trying to police and control everything. What ever happened to wanting more freedom.

Nice...

[TrisexualPuppy]

So I won't be able to order Pfizer terramycin from Greece anymore and will be required to spend 10x the amount and purchase it locally?

Re:Next up

[Ancantus]

"Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record." ~ 1984 by George Orwell

Re:Next up

[Anonymous Coward]

I'f you're really upset then why not write a letter to your congressman ...

I find rubbing my lucky rabbit foot to be much more effective - and pleasant.

Re:Next up

[blair1q]

Why do you think that shutting down theives is the same thing as shutting down newspapers?

Seriously, the depth of cluelessness that surrounds this issue is abyssal.

The government protects MPAA and RIAA members against torrent sites. Given.

But if you were ever so industrious as to write something that was worth something, the government would protect you from the MPAA, the RIAA, and itself.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[pixelpusher220]

What you call 'taking advantage of you' could also be called 'free advertising'. A copy of a work (song, painting), have previously been treated as a 'product' in and of themselves. That will change to being a 'physical copy'. A digital copy of a work can be reproduced perfectly and in an infinite supply.

So that now the 'value' of a copy is going to be for practical purposes, zero.

The music industry is fighting this, but simply can't win that war. Eventually new artists will skip the established labels and go straight online and the labels and 'old' companies will wither.

As an artist, use the power of the internet to drive sales of the intangible things you create. Like playing a live concert, or an actual painting. That is the way of the future.

And to be sure there will be some 'need' for a good marketing company to promote bands, but it will be less of the master/slave relationship that the labels currently have and more of the customer/client relationship that exists in normal non-monopoly situations.

Re:Next up

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Perhaps artists should look into either creating new work or getting a real job like the rest of us instead of expecting to get paid in perpetuity. Any work done should automatically go into the public domain after 30 years regardless of whether or not the artist is still living. Righs should also be non-transferable. Copyright is a contract between artists and society, they create work and we grant them a temporary monopoly on distribution, what's happened is they still have their monopoly but are refusing to let the work fall into the public domain. The market is adjusting accordingly.

Re:Next up

[lostthoughts54]

quite a leap? hardly so imo. This thought i think is verified in the internet kill switch debate. A button(essentially) to disable any website deemed harmful or infringing, if u think use of that will stop at copyright u are ignorant of politics and american history. Case and point= Wikileaks(i know we are all sick of hearing the name) they keep getting taken down based on a political reasons, not legal ones.

U dont lose rights, they are eroded away.

Re:viva le WIKILEAKS

[Runaway1956]

You're talking out your ass, fuzzy. Freedom isn't free - you have that much right. However - your conservative minded friends are busy taking freedoms away from the common man. I'll remind you: copyright was NEVER MEANT to ensure that the owner could make a dollar. It was only intended to ensure that IF ANYONE made a coin or two from his work, then he should get part of it. Every bone head moron who thinks that beating the kid down the street to the copyright and/or patent office with something new should guarantee an income for life needs to pull their bone-heads out of their asses. Hey - Microsoft came to market first, with an easy operating system that any moron could use. That means what, exactly? That everyone in the world should pay Microsoft forever? What utter fucking BULLSHIT! Back in the day when patents and copyrights were limited to reasonable periods of time, everything that made Win 3.1 and the W32 crap work would be public today. That's right. The added bits and pieces that made the small jump from W32 up to Win98 would be coming up for expiration in about two or three years. (Fact is, Digital Research beat Microsoft to the W32 thing, which is exactly why Microsoft turned their big guns on DRDos) No - freedom isn't free. And, you'll remember that when the commoners are spilling your royal blood on Wall Street. Our laws are totally borked right now because your heros are crooked SOB's who buy the laws they want.

Re:Next up

[Runaway1956]

Have you forgotten how the (un)Patriot act was passed? Remember the days after 9/11, while the Anthrax scare was really raging? Every sniveling, whining dog in Washington wanted action, immediately, to take the fear out of their timid little hearts. They ALL voted for the (un)Patriot act - liberals, conservatives, libertarians, male and female, black and white, straight and queer, big and little, it just didn't matter who or what they were. In fact, the (un)Patriot act alone makes the best single argument in favor of the conspiracy nuts who think it was an inside job.

How long before the US becomes world enemy #1?

[erroneus]

Wikileaks have shown in very clear detail how the U.S., often at the request of U.S. business (and isn't this exactly how imperialism works?), meddles in the affairs of other nations... sometimes with guns and explosives. The U.S. seems to be expanding or otherwise pushing its weight around a lot lately where pushing its agenda around. Now it is using its ICANN control to mess with DNS and it won't be long before IP routing is also a tool in its belt as well.

All of this is going to (and already is) make people very angry with the U.S. and eventually stop doing business with U.S. companies out of principle. That will pretty much spell the end of the U.S. as we know it.

The U.S. exists in a world among MANY nations. Once we turn the majority of them against us, we're in trouble... I think we already are.

It's time for the U.S. to behave. The next round of Wikileaks will turn up the truth further by exposing the REAL causes of the problems -- world banks.

Re:Next up

[blair1q]

If you didn't read the contract you signed when they bought your copyright from you, that's too bad for you, and a good example of where the government should keep its nose out of private individuals' business.

But if you can prove the RIAA or MPAA stole your stuff, you win:

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/07/business/fi-34293 [latimes.com]

Re:Next up

[ubermiester]

How long before they start to censor sites with political views not approved by the government, or blocking sites deemed 'risks to national security'

That's the kind of thinking that leads to statements like "If we let gay people get married, what's next - marrying your dog?" Please stop the Bush/Obama=Hilter madness. If you're going to make the case for hypothetical future govt abuses, at least come up with something remotely based on reality.

Similarly, selling bootleg DVDs on the street is illegal and those who do so are shut down and arrested/fined. This has not in any way led to the shutdown of legit video stores that sell "objectionable" content. To make that link is to create a classic straw-man.

tired of my country trying to police and control everything

By any measurable standard, the average American citizen has more freedom of movement and behavior than anyone in human history. And the trend continues. Gay/inter-racial marriage, hardcore porn, sodomy, public nudity, medical marijuana, etc, etc, etc. There has been an explosion of new rights and freedoms in the 20th century. What freedoms do you feel you have lost?

If you're concerned about your right to steal music/movies/books/etc by getting them from torrent sites, then you are claiming that your "right" to steal trumps the creator's (intellectual) property rights. Not exactly what you had in mind I don't think, but that's what you're complaining about in the current context.

Re:Next up

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

For the record I do believe homosexuals have the right to get married, but to play Devil's advocate, would you support polygamy? It's the same logic in that the people entering into the contract are consenting adults who happen to have a different way of expressing their love/sexuality.

Re:viva le WIKILEAKS

[Rakarra]

Why are you even making a "conservatism is bad" argument here? It's the left that has been the side more firmly in favor of vigorous copyright controls and enforcement, and it's the more leftist administration that is making this more of a priority. Liberal vs Conservative is not necessarily drawn in "non-moneyed interests versus moneyed interest" lines, nor does it mean that the left is not cozy to some big business interests. They are very interested in vigorous government pre-emptive intervention on the part of the media conglomerates.

Re:Next up

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

I think the 30 year mark is just a nice round number that to the average person represents an appreciable amount of time...but not too much. The problem I have with the lifetime of the artist is with bands. If you had a band of 4 people and 3 have died, does the copyright die with you? What if you replaced your drummer at year 5, does the copyright of everything between years 1-4 not apply to him? Thirty years seems like an ample amount of time to profit from a work, and in all honesty having copyrights expire within the lifetime of the artist (in my mind at least) will encourage them to create more work. It's a song, not a retirement plan.

Re:viva le WIKILEAKS

[fishexe]

It's the left that has been the side more firmly in favor of vigorous copyright controls and enforcement, and it's the more leftist administration that is making this more of a priority.

Which left? Where? Oh, you mean the Democratic party. Yeah, those guys who kept ripping on the "professional left" for being "too far to the left" all this past election cycle. Man, those guys are real leftists, I tell ya.

Re:Next up

[sjames]

He's from Saudi Arabia.

He moved to Afghanistan, but that was already trashed by the Soviets and then again by the Taliban.

Given his beliefs, he probably would have gotten around to attacking Iraq eventually, but we saved him the trouble.

As for MORE, that's a matter of perspective. Neither his birth country, any country he lives in, nor their neighbors have given up the fundamental ideas behind their foundation. We keep chiseling away at our own foundation.