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.'"
Sooooo (Score:0, Insightful)
How's that hope and change working out for you?
No Surprise Here (Score:5, Insightful)
This Administration (Score:5, Insightful)
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:No Surprise Here (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Sooooo (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.
#occupyhollywood (Score:3, Insightful)
Time to expand the #occupy movement to Hollywood (actually, the RIAA and MPAA HQs are in Washington DC).
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:This is Fucked (Score:4, Insightful)
When? Never. The foxes will never vote themselves out of the job of guarding the chicken coop.
Re:Sooooo (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" thing from corporations.
If this doesn't work, guess its time to pick up your winchesters and pitchforks and burn down the white house and the capitol again.
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: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:Sooooo (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: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:Corruption at the highest level (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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: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).