US Copyright Czar Cozied Up To Content Industry 162
Nemesisghost writes "According to emails obtained via a Freedom of Information request, the U.S. Copyright Czar played an important role in brokering the deals between ISPs and copyright holders to punish subscribers whose IP addresses participated in copyright infringement. From the article: 'The records show the government clearly had a voice in the closed-door negotiations, though it was not a signatory to the historic accord, which isn’t an actual government policy. ... [T]he communications show that a wide range of officials — from Vice President Joe Biden’s deputy chief of staff Alan Hoffman, the Justice Department’s criminal chief Lanny Breuer to copyright czar Victoria Espinel — were in the loop well ahead of the accord’s unveiling. "These kind of backroom voluntary deals are quite scary, particularly because they are not subject to judicial review. I wanted to find out what role the White House has played in the negotiation, but unfortunately, the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) withheld key documents that would shed further light on it," Soghoian said when asked why he sought the documents.'"
No Surprise Here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No Surprise Here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
From now on I'll keep in mind that any politician's slogan is likely to turn into a punch line.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Business as usual in Washington
I'm surprised that this information could be obtained in the first place. Due to the overwhelming "Me Too" culture in Washington this is par for the course. It wasn't always like this though.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, typically once in office, "Change you can believe in" quickly becomes "Dollars you can believe in". The other way of looking at it is that those in Washington DC are just following the Golden Rule: Whoever has the gold makes the rules.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that there is no smoking gun here. Just that people got emails that regard this deal before the deal was public.
This only adds up to something if you have conclusions in search of facts.
Re:No Surprise Here (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a tendency for people who visit slashdot to oversimplify and equate Democrat=good and Republican=evil. The truth is much more complex. In particular, The movie, TV, and record industry has always been squarely behind Democrats [opensecrets.org], and the publishing industry shifted that way [opensecrets.org] during the Bush years (scroll down to the Party Split graphs).
This isn't a Democrat administration doing something with a copyright issue which you'd never expect, something you'd only expect from a Republican administration. It's a Democrat administration doing exactly what you'd expect it to do with a copyright issue. If you voted for Obama expecting him to side with the people instead of copyright holders, you need to do a better job researching political contributions next time. We have wonderful tools now which make it dirt simple compared to 15 years ago when we had to have it spoon-fed to us by the media, and you're remiss not to take advantage of them.
Personally I think it was the right choice - banking and finance reform was more important. But I knew it would mean copyright would shift the "wrong" way (in favor of content producers).
Re: (Score:2)
But I knew it would mean copyright would shift the "wrong" way (in favor of content producers).
Yes, that was my fear as well. Once this is in place, I would expect the media companies and their front organizations to stop bitching about online infringement and to stop suing people. But they won't: that's too big a moneymaker in its own right, and they like being able to make threats and intimidate people. They had also better start show record profits, since all those thousands of billions of dollars in lost sales will now suddenly start appearing in their bank accounts.
Right?
Re: (Score:3)
With newspapers dying out, it seems the only hope for independent journalism is the internet, but good luck getti
Sadly.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This Administration (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Corruption at the highest level (Score:5, Insightful)
And people wonder why we are currently protesting in the streets over corporate greed and its manipulation of our nation's ideals?
Re: (Score:3)
GREED:
Governments and Rich people Exploiting Everyone to Death
Re: (Score:3)
And people wonder why we are currently protesting in the streets over corporate greed and its manipulation of our nation's ideals, while steadfastly refusing to admit to ourselves that our man Obama is nothing more than a puppet perpetuating the very things we think are wrong in the system, or that his administration is just as bad as the one which went before. So we have a plan to Change things by holding signs which speak out against the actions of Obama's principal campaign donors, and getting the MM to show us at 5 and 11, in the Hope that maybe just maybe he will finally do those things he promised us he would do, but until now has just lied about [youtube.com]. Think it will work?
There, FTFY.
Re:Corruption at the highest level (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And people wonder why we are currently protesting in the streets over corporate greed and its manipulation of our nation's ideals, while steadfastly refusing to admit to ourselves that our man Obama is nothing more than a puppet perpetuating the very things we think are wrong in the system, or that his administration is just as bad as the one which went before. So we have a plan to Change things by holding signs which speak out against the actions of Obama's principal campaign donors, and getting the MM to show us at 5 and 11, in the Hope that maybe just maybe he will finally do those things he promised us he would do, but until now has just lied about [youtube.com]. Think it will work?
Congratulations for the perfect definition of the Liberal disease of Cognitive Dissonance.
Re: (Score:2)
Because cognitive dissonance is only found among liberals (which, I suspect, is everyone you disagree with)? Right..... As long as conservatives continue to put out this kind of moronic and juvenile nonsense, I'll keep voting for the at least well-intended evil.
But OWS was co-opted from day one (Score:2, Informative)
and the message being spread "officially" is anything but what many think it is. Go read their home page and you will see demands that government do this, that, and that, to all sorts of parties. Yet you see no demands to get government off the backs of people - all they want is it on the backs of people they don't like.
I am all for people demonstrating their displeasure at the ballot box, we have a working democracy (republic) because we respect the system. It certainly needs an over haul in parts but not
Re: (Score:2)
we have a working democracy (republic) because we respect the system
We don't have a working democracy, that's the point. If we did, we'd have a government that's run in the interests of the 99.9% of us, and not the top 0.1%.
Really, go read their site, the other day the first five or so WE WANT (I mean these guys come off as "WE ARE, THEREFOR YOU OWE US) were to use the oppressive power of government even more.
Yes, we're asking the government to do its job and actually protect us. That means more laws, and
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't aware there was an "official" anything with these protests.
Someone set up a website related to the event and posted something on it. That does not make it the "official" website.
No, no we don't. You can see it in the broken partisanship and the pro-corporate laws that get pushed constantly.
Of course, I have no problem with using govern
Re: (Score:2)
That's right, you are for changeless hopelessness, forever and ever, world without end, eh 'Archangel'?
Re: (Score:2)
You're one of those "something must be done, this is something, it must be done" kind of people, aren't you?
Re: (Score:2)
And people wonder why we are currently protesting in the streets over corporate greed and its manipulation of our nation's ideals?
You should be protesting right in front of The White House.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike you, they understand where the actual economic and political decisions are made: Wall Street.
This is Fucked (Score:3)
Re:This is Fucked (Score:5, Insightful)
You're assuming that "we" can enact legislation. "We" cannot. We can only elect representatives that "we" hope will represent our interests.
But that's not the way it works anymore. Those guys that make legislation only seem to represent big corporate interests, because that's who's funding their re-election campaigns. Then they use that money to make TV commercials that lie to us, telling us to vote for him so he can represent us. Then, when we stupidly elect him, he goes and screws us, and enacts legislation for the interests that really got him re-elected, which is big money.
So "we" really have no voice in government at all. "We" cannot enact legislation, "we" are only subjects to the king and queen -- i.e. big companies.
Re: (Score:2)
America has the best government money can buy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I just won't be able to run any smear ads, which I have no intention of doing anyway. The way I see it, candidates shoul
Re: (Score:2)
Just think, what would happen if droves of ordinary Americans started challenging these career criminals for their cushy positions of power?
They'd spend millions on running smear campaigns against ordinary Americans and drown them with red tape? Just a thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is Fucked (Score:4, Insightful)
When? Never. The foxes will never vote themselves out of the job of guarding the chicken coop.
Re: (Score:2)
When are we going to enact legislation that disallows this kind of crap while in office, and prevents officials from going from their current position to a lobbying position so quickly?
Never.
Since the legislators directly benefit from "this kind of crap", it is not in their interest to outlaw it.
I guess I'm not fully understanding the problem. (Score:2)
Re:I guess I'm not fully understanding the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, for me it is because:
1. The government is way over-invested in protecting copyrights. They have a role to play, but it should be limited to providing the venue for litigation and enforcement of rulings. I don't want to pay copyright-holder's cost-of-doing-business unless I've actually purchased their products - not with my tax dollars.
2. The ISPs previously had no involvement whatever in the copyright issue. That's how it should have stayed. I don't want to pay the copyright holder's cost-of-doing-business by paying my ISP more either.
3. The executive has completely forgotten that it represents ALL of us, not just its favorites. That includes the copyright czar. If she is involved, she should be representing *we the people*. I don't know how she can "broker a deal" between ISPs and major copyright holders (read: not even all of them...) and do a good job for the rest of us, too. I don't think that's possible.
4. This policy affects all of us, but we have no say because it's two multi-corporate interests meeting in secret with the executive branch (see #3 above) to form an agreement which will, in effect, be law.
Why is the executive involved at all? Because just like the copyright holders, it wants to shift the costs of enforcement (which it has taken upon itself, mind you) onto someone else. Hello, ISPs!
Re: (Score:2)
Therefore, the government should not be involved in individual copyright infringement at any level outside the judiciary, where civil m
Re: (Score:2)
You need a new lawyer, google 17USC506. Other sections of the law define other roles for the USG as well.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, once you open up copyright infringement to the planet on the Internet, it is always on a "commercial" scale. We stopped talking about friends swapping floppies 20 years ago. Now you post something on the Internet and everyone on the planet gets to take advantage of it.
Now, if the objective is to destroy the revenue model for any and all digital goods it is working fine. When I can grab a book, movie, music or software for free because "I want it" without any worries about getting tracked
Re: (Score:2)
No sarcasm intended, but why is it a big deal when the US government is working with the two entities most closely related to the issue of US laws being violated?
That's like asking why the National Labor Relations Board is stacked with former union heads and works so closely with those unions. The other side, whether it be consumers or employers -- and even employees themselves -- have no seat at the table. Tell me now that's fair representation?
Re: (Score:2)
The other issue is that, if you read the article, there is no smoking gun.
All it says is that they were aware of the deal before it was public and were concerned about the spin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure what this "groupthink" is you're speaking of, but that's a topic for another day.
I suppose the issue many have is that the "laws" you speak of, in a system putatively set up "of the people, by the people and for the people" do not seem to represent the interests of "the people". The OP describes a scenario in which "the people" aren't involved in the defining of the policies and laws that affect them, thus the resulting policies and laws are rather one-sided and tend to benefit a small group a
Re: (Score:2)
Even someone that is pro-copyright could object to these laws/decisions. From shutting off peoples' internet connections because they are accused of copyright infringement to things such as this (and lobbying).
I'm sorry, but I simply don't see the potential loss of potential profit as that big of a deal. Certainly not big enough of a deal that I'd suggest legislation would could harm innocents.
Well duh (Score:5, Insightful)
When this guy was appointed, was there any doubt in anyone's mind that his SOLE responsibility would be to act as a shill for the big media industry? It's not like anyone believed for a second that he was EVER going to represent consumer interests or the rights of the general citizenry.
Sadly, that doesn't make him any different than the Congress or President. Hell, even the Supreme Court is ruling [nytimes.com] that corporations have a *right* to bribe as many public officials as they like. If you want to find someone representing the unwashed-masses-without-lobbyists, you'll have to turn to the EFF. The U.S. government is just a corporate subsidiary now.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a chick, not a dude. Just FYI.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"[The government] was not a signatory to the historic accord, which isn’t an actual government policy"
I know it's fun to bitch and moan, but try to at least read the whole summary first. A couple government officials who are involved in copyright were kept in the loop regarding private deals between the media companies and ISPs. We have no idea what their role really was. But Wired has an email in which an administration official says [correcting her horrific AOL-style spelling]:
"Could talk for 15
Editor Fail (Score:2)
Instead of accepting bad copy paste jobs directly from the articles you're linking to, how about doing some editing. Like, who the hell is Soghoian? That'd be something to establish in your blurb.
Re: (Score:2)
Like, who the hell is Soghoian? That'd be something to establish in your blurb.
"According to emails obtained via a Freedom of Information request....Soghoian said when asked why he sought the documents." Just a shot in the dark, but I'm going to guess he's the one who sought the documents. Could be wrong though...
Re: (Score:2)
Yea but who is he? Some random jackoff, somebody in EPIC? the EFF?
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.dubfire.net/ [dubfire.net]
Can anyone see the emails? (Score:2)
#occupyhollywood (Score:3, Insightful)
Time to expand the #occupy movement to Hollywood (actually, the RIAA and MPAA HQs are in Washington DC).
I'm SHOCKED! (Score:2)
We really, really, really need to get lobbying and corporate money out of our government.
Obama Administration (Score:3)
I long suspected the Obama Administration was the one behind the recent agreement between ISPs and the content industry. I'm sure ISPs would prefer to decide on their own which users it is best to keep and which it is best to drop, so the fact ISPs reached any kind of deal with the content industry was a puzzle with a missing piece. It turns out that missing piece was the US Copyright Czar.
I suspect the same thing about recent efforts to shut down domain names: You have Congress pushing for PROTECT IP, DHS shutting down allegedly infringing domains without a trial, and Verizon out of the blue and for no apparent reason deciding to incorporate policies similar to those of PROTECT IP which would better allow DHS to shut down domains it considers infringing. That is the sort of thing that suggests a coordinated effort rather than mere coincidence.
Re: (Score:2)
s/Verizon/VeriSign
PS... (Score:4, Insightful)
What bugs me the most about this is the fact that the government is basically throwing its weight around in order to regulate without having to legislate.
Government in bed with big business (Score:2)
News at 11.
Occupy!
Why no one complains about Czars (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are people not up in arms about anyone being called a Czar in our government. A Czar is royalty. We should all be screaming about anyone in our government being declared royalty.
Really? Because a bureaucrat in charge of a particular area is called a "Czar"? This isn't actually new.
I'm not commenting on her job performance, but pettiness over semantics like this is why the Rs and Ds can drive a wedge between Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's just a bullshit Republican talking point? The so-called "Czars" are just nicknames for positions with long, tongue-tying titles. We've been using the term since the days of Nixon. It's only when the GOP decided they sooner burn down the country than let someone else lead it that they decided to start a fuss about the nicknames.
Re: (Score:3)
Because it's just a bullshit Republican talking point? The so-called "Czars" are just nicknames for positions with long, tongue-tying titles. We've been using the term since the days of Nixon. It's only when the GOP decided they sooner burn down the country than let someone else lead it that they decided to start a fuss about the nicknames.
Not true at all. These unelected, unconfirmed, czars are being given unconstitutional powers never seen in any previous administration either Republican or Democratic.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. A czar by definition has no budget, which means he/she has no power. The only thing they can do is hold meetings, and move information around. That alone can be a lot of power - but it certainly isn't unconstitutional to have meetings.
Re: (Score:2)
Hows that hopey changy working out for ya? (Score:2)
"We will achieve our goal of making this administration the most open and transparent administration in history" ... "Americans have a right to know whose voices are being heard in the policymaking process," - President Obama
No a surprise (Score:4, Informative)
Joe the moron Biden has been a copyright industry shill since his senate days. He as sponsored all kinds of draconian copyright bills [tinymixtapes.com]with the likes of Berman, Dodd, and Hatch, but Biden is the ring leader. Its disgusting really. Then there is Orin Hatch this moron wanted to install software on our computers to monitor us for copyright infringement and destroy our computers [theregister.co.uk] if the software thought we were infringing.
The problem is that no one cares and copyright is not an election issue so we are all screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Biden would have been reason enough to vote for someone other than Obama. Problem is, the alternative was - and if we were presented the same choice today - still is FAR worse - I'd rather not have the Right 'finish the job' - looting and destroying the economy of the West, while converting us into a theocratic state, thankyouverymuch.
This tarnishes the dignity of his royal personage (Score:5, Funny)
I think this really tarnishes the dignity of his royal personage. A US Czar should not be personally involved in such shady deals. He should have sent one of his boyars to do it. Or at most a low level copyright Knyaz.
Yup, both parties are the same... (Score:2)
...they just cozy up to different industries. Republicans favor raw materials and insurers,Democrats favor the entertainment and tech industries. They both suck up to big pharma.
It used to be that when a new party came into power, they'd spend a couple of years investigating the corruption in the previous administration before getting deep into the trough themselves. Nowadays the waiting period is over. Corruption is the one thing they DON'T attack each other over, except on the campaign trail.
IF documents have to be kept secret then ... (Score:2)
the cozy back room deal is probably a lot worse for consumers than we realize.
I'm 70, and there was a time in my early life when Federal agencies upheld their mandate to protect the consumer from greedy or corrupt corporations. Now, the Feds protect the greedy, corrupt corporations from the wrath of of the consumers whom the corporations abused.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, we went from 8 years of "I can't believe this shit!" to "Change we could believe in." in much the same way like we believe in the tooth fairy or that hard work leads to wealth.
Re: (Score:2)
Well you can continue to slack off. So the rest of us can get your job.
Hard work is part of the path that leads to wealth. But there isn't one simple rule for wealth. Hard Work is part of it, and an important part.
Re:Sooooo (Score:5, Insightful)
It's become quite clear int he last few decades that privilege has much more to do with wealth than hard work. Hard work may secure you a living on the upper end of the middle class. A class that is rapidly getting less and less of the pie due to the actions of the privileged.
Hard work gets you a job with absolutely no security. Hard work gets you raises, which makes you a target for downsize because you make too much.
Privilege gets you a job running a few companies in to the ground, then later on a governorship and a two term presidency.
Re: (Score:2)
Well you can continue to slack off. So the rest of us can get your job. Hard work is part of the path that leads to wealth. But there isn't one simple rule for wealth. Hard Work is part of it, and an important part.
Typical bought-dog. Some people work hard and some people work smart. The smartest work the hardest in the smartest fashion possible.
Re:Sooooo (Score:4, Insightful)
Hope and Change turned out to be a whole bunch of sitting around and not getting much done.
Since the previous situation was getting a fuck of a lot done but none of it any good , we can say that "Hope and Change" worked out just fine.
zero is greater than negative numbers, after all.
Re:Sooooo (Score:4, Insightful)
And you are happy settling for that. Right?
I'm not.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's a start. First cease to do evil, then endeavour to do good. We can't walk and crawl at the same time.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How's that hope and change working out for you?
Its the political system to be rotten. Whoever you elect won't make a damn difference, not with the current system in place.
Want to change things ?
Make it illegal for corporations to "donate" money to political parties.
Make it illegal for campaign contributions.
Define a mechanism whereby political parties are financed by public money (fixed amount of money, so no more campaigns that cost billions of $).
Make it so that political parties all have equal visibility on public tv.
Strip the whole "personhood" thin
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
create room for one that might actually look out for us.
Here's an idea:
Why not choose to look out for *yourself*, instead of sloughing off that responsibility onto others - whether it be individuals, or the government?
Sure, it ain't easy, but give it a shot, and you'll find that you have some self-respect afterwards, and gained some self-worth in the process. Creating a nanny state is *not* the answer.
Re:Sooooo (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you insane? How do you propose to look out for yourself against the whims of corporations if not through the government? If some banker decides to just straight up take all of your retirement savings for himself, what are you gonna do? If your insurance company decides that, after years of collecting premiums, they don't feel like paying out benefits when you're in trouble, what are you gonna do?
The Merciful God of the Market is a lie. Market forces won't stop $MEGACORP from screwing you over. You need to band together with your neighbors to defend yourself. And when you do, that is called "government".
Re: (Score:2)
Market forces didn't create $MEGACORP. Guess who did.
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly, the government hasn't done anything to stop any abuses of late.
There are only a few ways to deal with the problem if you are made into a victim:
- You can decide to be a victim and hope someone else fixes things for you.
- You can get a rifle and stop being a victim.
There are no other alternatives available today. The government is not going to tell an insurance company they have to cover you. They may create a rule that says in order for the insurance company to not cover you they must do A, B and C
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know what, I agree with this. The GOP is filled with right wing nuts and the Democrats have become the party of everyone.
If today's "liberals" were running the show in the 60's/70's we would still have a segregated society and been happily burning through an extra 10 years in Vietnam.
Re: (Score:2)
Did your liberal brainwashing in school forget to tell you that it was the Democrats that tied up the floors for 83 days in a record-setting filibuster attempting to stop the Civil Rights Act?
You think that todays liberals might try to stop the civil right
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those Democrats who tried to block the Civil Rights Act were the Dixiecrats, the same Southern traders in bigotry and ignorance that pollute politics to this day. They became Republicans after the CRA fight.
Brainwashing has also misinformed you that a significant number of CRA-opposition in the Democrat party joined the Republican party. Byrd, Gore (Senior), Fulbright.. the leaders of the Democrat filibuster of the CRA, did not join the Republican party after the CRA was passed, and in fact they never joined the Republican party.
You are speaking from the perspective of revisionists that want you to believe something that isnt true. In the 60's the claims that the Republicans were the racists were laughed at
Re: (Score:2)
Socialism is not communism, and even the current Democrat Party is not as far to the left as it has been in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Most transparent administration ever."
Yes, the President is truly an Empty Suit. Doesn't get more transparent than that.
Re: (Score:2)
"Most transparent administration ever."
Yes, the President is truly an Empty Suit. Doesn't get more transparent than that.
--
Google may say Don't Be Evil, but how do such flaming Liberals define Evil to start with?
Evil : Bad for large values of *is*.