Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Music Media Your Rights Online

Hilary Rosen from RIAA will write Iraq's Copyrights? 775

sould writes "The Register is reporting that Hilary Rosen is to assist in writing Iraq's Intellectual Property laws. Can't have those Iraqi's pirating Eminem now can we?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hilary Rosen from RIAA will write Iraq's Copyrights?

Comments Filter:
  • by ChaoticChaos ( 603248 ) * <l3sr-v4cf&spamex,com> on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:24AM (#5834310)
    I thought that when we ousted Sadaam, that meant the end of cruel and merciless regimes for the Iraqi people. ;-)

    I wonder if the Republican Guard will instinctively rally around Ms. Rosen? ;-)

    • by grumpygrodyguy ( 603716 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:30AM (#5834386)
      I wonder if the Republican Guard will instinctively rally around Ms. Rosen? ;-)

      Yes, but they will truly fear Chemical Valenti.
      • We'll see about that.

        Wait until Ms. Rosen can cut loose in a country without the Bill of Rights, ACLU, etc. to slow her down. There will be tons of Iraqi citizens doing hard time if they are caught *humming* songs without the CD on them. ;-)
  • by 1010011010 ( 53039 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:25AM (#5834316) Homepage
    Someone might shoot her!
    • by Rinikusu ( 28164 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @11:23AM (#5835022)
      I find that remark to be shallow, callous, and very very horrible. To wish death upon a person simply because her viewpoints are different from yours is completely barbaric.

      Maybe someone will throw a jar of acid in her face, instead.
      • +1 Funny (Score:5, Insightful)

        by slaker ( 53818 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @11:51AM (#5835317)
        "To wish death upon a person simply because her viewpoints are different from yours is completely barbaric."

        Republican. Barbaric. Whichever.

        More seriously, WTF is up with worrying about IP laws in a country that collectively doesn't have running water? Are photocopiers and CD burners so much a problem in a nation where most "modern" technology has been embargo'd for the last 12 years?

        I can see it now: "Whip the camels faster, Ali, we almost have 'Jagged Little Pill'"

        OTOH, Ms. Rosen is free for the first time to establish her dream: The Elite P2P Death Squad.
        • Re:+1 Funny (Score:5, Interesting)

          by nagora ( 177841 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @01:50PM (#5836561)
          More seriously, WTF is up with worrying about IP laws in a country that collectively doesn't have running water?

          The reasons for that would fill a book. Specifically, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" 2nd ed. I don't think it's available in the US as the author has won a prize as the most censored author in America but I'm sure Amazon.co.uk will sell you it. Remember to get the 2nd edition.

          The short answer: Iraq is to be a "free trade zone" for the purpose of destabilising the region's economies. If it was as simple as that, of course, it wouldn't work since free trade would eat Iraq alive and spit out the ground down bones but this FTZ will be bankrolled by the US via the World Bank (51% owned by the US Treasury Dept.) so that it won't go the way of Argentina, South Africa, Thailand, Chile etc. It's all very complicated and boils down to a return to 19th century economics and all the great benefits they gave people (rich people, that is). Think "Robber Barons Take On The World": there are literally trillions of dollars at stake here.

          That's why the religious parties in Iraq are not being invited to run the country despite having the majority of the population's support: they would throw the "liberators" out and tell them where to stick their free trade. And, wouldn't you? If I locked you in a room with Saddam Hussain for 25 years how grateful would you be when I let you out? Now replace me with Donald Rumsfeld and you with the Iraqi people; can you see why they are annoyed even after they've been freed?

          TWW

  • by Flamesplash ( 469287 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:25AM (#5834325) Homepage Journal
    Yeah, freedom, freeeeedoooommm!
  • Aha! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Captain Rotundo ( 165816 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:26AM (#5834331) Homepage
    And to think everyone thought the bombing was the "Shock & Awe" part of the campaign....
  • by Jerk City Troll ( 661616 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:26AM (#5834340) Homepage
    As if the Iraqi people were not burried in oppression, now we're going to mire them up in US patent and IP nonsense. By the time we're through, the people will never have a foothold to get any technological endeavor off the ground. They'll be forever burried by our stupid laws. Of course, bad patent & IP laws are better than being murdered by your government, it's still kind of a sinister trade. The Iraqi people have no idea what we may be getting them into -- until they try to make any significant advances in the global technology industry. Someone explain to me how this isn't colonization?
    • by sigep_ohio ( 115364 ) <drinking@seven.am.is.bad> on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:30AM (#5834385) Homepage Journal
      "Someone explain to me how this isn't colonization?"

      Cause GWBush says it ain't.
    • by gilesjuk ( 604902 ) <giles.jones@nospaM.zen.co.uk> on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:47AM (#5834583)
      They're writing a copyright law for a country that needs clean water and food? give us a break.

      So much for the self rule of Iraq.
      • by danro ( 544913 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @12:07PM (#5835463) Homepage
        They're writing a copyright law for a country that needs clean water and food? give us a break.

        Besides, as somebody else mentioned here, Iraq already has copyright laws.
        They are not cavemen you know.
        ...they just don't have copyright with a life + 75 year span. (They have life + 25 up to a maximum of 50 years) They also don't have 97.000.000.000$ fines for copyright violation.

        <rant-mode>
        One could reasonably argue that when it came to copyright, if nothing else, Iraq actually had more sane laws than both the US and the EU.
        I'm, sure that will change real soon now though.
        </rant-mode>
      • by Jonny Ringo ( 444580 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @12:32PM (#5835707)
        Well, Its part of the rebuilding plan of the U.S. stock market.
    • Some perspective (Score:5, Informative)

      by alexo ( 9335 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @11:13AM (#5834905) Journal
      Here are some news stroies (Google is your friend):
      * Palast, BBC journalist, says war is profit-maker for Bush allies [yaledailynews.com]
      * Post-war carve-up to benefit CDMA standard, record industry [europemedia.net]
      * Journalist says media is biased on war [zwire.com]

      I encourage you to check out Greg Palast's site [gregpalast.com]. He is the BBC reporter that the original article mentions and the author of "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy [gregpalast.com]". Interesting read.
    • "Someone explain to me how this isn't colonization?"

      Funny you mention that. The last time I can remember the US was involved in a war where the federal government's stance was "We're not colonizing! Really!" was the Spanish American War. Part of the war vote in Congress revolved around a declaration that Cuba would not become US territory in any way, shape or form. Of course, no such clause prevented US posession of Puerto Rico...

      After the Spanish American War, the US was very careful to establish so
  • by ShwAsasin ( 120187 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:27AM (#5834346) Journal
    Rather than waste time writing copyright laws, why don't they fix their infrastructure, health/education systems and provide essential services. No offense to copyright holders (I myself being one of them) but basic human rights should come before protecting whats yours.
    • by keesh ( 202812 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:28AM (#5834362) Homepage
      Protecting what's yours is a basic human right.
      • by vidarh ( 309115 ) <vidar@hokstad.com> on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:43AM (#5834532) Homepage Journal
        Something you have copyright on isn't yours. It's something you have been granted a temporary monopoly on the commercial exploitation on as an incentive from the government for commercial support to advance science, art and culture and to foster innovation.

        Copyright law is entirely separate from property law, and as such "intellectual property" as a term is an attempt to sell the concept of copyright as a property right to lessen the outcry over the continuous attack on fair use and the public domain.

      • by JordanH ( 75307 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:46AM (#5834569) Homepage Journal
        • Protecting what's yours is a basic human right.

        Yes, but the point that's being overlooked here is that copyrights don't have anything to do with "what's yours". Copyrights are a grant of exclusive use, for a limited time, by the Government. It is not really a property right.

        One can no more own a work protected by copyright than a rancher who is grazing BLM lands owns the land his livestock are standing on.

        I do think these important distinctions are being blurred. A lot of people seem to think they own ideas and others think that private property is a grant by the state. I'm not looking forward to the day when either of these beliefs become true.

      • by EinarH ( 583836 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @11:01AM (#5834751) Journal
        Protecting what's yours is a basic human right.
        Actually, copyright is not covered by the UN Declaration of Human Rights [un.org].
        If you are thinking of article 17....;
        (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

        (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

        ... it covers as you see property, as in houses, farms, cars, companies etc. NOT copyrights.

        Of course Iraq needs proper legislation/laws on this subject, but if you think they (US administartion)are doing this to protect Iraqi copyright holders I think you SERIOUSLY need to rethink your opinion.

        I thinks thinks [INSERT disclaimer that maybe the Reg. article aint correct] that this with other stories; for example USA protecting one Minstry in Bagdad; the Minestry of Oil, shows what the real motivation behind the Iraq-war was.
        No, I'm not saying that the invasion came because of copyrights or oil alone, thats just a bonus. When someone invade acountry they get to decide the legislation/laws inside that country. But selecting, among others; Hillary Rosen to help doing this says a lot about the current administartion.

        After the defeat/collapse of the Third Reich/Nazi-Germany it probably went over a year befor they though about copyrights. IMHO that probably was a good thing. Other needs are far more important than copyrights right now. People are dying inside Iraq and you are thinking on copyrights?
        Shame on you.

    • by fobbman ( 131816 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:34AM (#5834428) Homepage
      Dr. Kevorkian has already been pegged to be their Health Minister.

    • by enjo13 ( 444114 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:34AM (#5834429) Homepage
      That's a large part of the point for the RIAA. While Iraq is busy rebuilding it's infrastructure they can effectively impose their brand of IP law on these people with very little in the way of actual resistance.

      To your average Iraqi, who CARES if they have no concept of fair use.. after all they have no running water, much less a CD burner.

      This is not without precedent. In the wake of WWII our media conglomerates also imposed similiar types of oppressive IP law in France and West Germany which basically shut down their film makers..
  • Nice tidbit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Aviancer ( 645528 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:27AM (#5834350) Homepage Journal
    With the effective collapse of the UN's food program, it's nice to see Rosen's humanitarian impulses remain untarnished by war.


    Guess somebody has their priorities straight...

  • by Garg ( 35772 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:28AM (#5834358) Homepage
    ... if they make her wear veils all the time.

    Garg
  • by phaetonic ( 621542 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:28AM (#5834360)
    Did you know that there is a 2% surcharge on all CD recorders sold that goes directly to the RIAA, and a 2% hidden tax associated with the AHRA that is collected by the RIAA to give to artists, yet only roughly 36% of that 2% goes to the artist. www.boycott-riaa.com
  • by argoff ( 142580 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:28AM (#5834361)
    If I said I didn't have an incentive to grow oranges uness I could plant a tree in your yard, or if I said I didn't have an incentive to grow cotton unless I could own slaves on the plantation, most people would see this is these as the worthless shallow arguments that they are. But if I said I didn't have an incentive to to make beneficial or creative works without a copyright monopoly, then all of a sudden people just take it on faith, they don't even question it, they just assume that society would fall apart without them. In my humble opinion, this is intellectually dishonest, especially considering that the entire Renassance happened without copyrights.

    The simple fact is, there is no equivalency relationship between copyrights and property rights - incentive does not a right make. The moral and historical foundation of property derives from the fact that property has physical limits, while the foundation of copyrights dervives from kings who granted publishers monopolies in return for not publishing bad things about the monarchy. The history of Copyrights is not one of rights, but controll of sharing and restricting the open use of knowledge.

    That is why people who copy are not criminals, thiefs, or akin to pirates who board ships and murder people. No, infact they are really victims of a cruel deception. A deception that copyrights somehow financially benefit artists and creators. The simple fact is, that for every artist that makes it "big" there are litterally thousands who copyrights haven't helped a bit, even hindered, or destroyed.

    However, this is not the only failure of copyrights - it is just one in many issues related to copyrighrts that are just blown off ignored, or glossed over. Like the failures of Hollywood culture, the failures of big media to provide quality material, the failures to provide reasonably priced books to college students while tabloids are dirt cheap, and massive anti-trust behavior in the software industry to name a few.

    While the problems associated with copyrights might have been bearable 20 years ago when the biggist issue was Xerox machines, today we are entering into the information age where information is so easy to copy and manipulate that there can be no middle ground. Our society will either half to controll all of it or none of it. Our communications will either half to be monitored or free, our privacy to be either contunuiously probed or protected

    In that sense, copyrights are like a vine that will never stop growing to choke off our freedoms until we cut it off at the root. The DMCA, infinite extensions, billion dollar lawsiuts, are all just symptoms of a poor belief system - not the cause. So the efforts to find a "middle ground" on copyrights are a failure because they do not address the core issue. That contrary to copyrights, the right to copy and distribute creative works and knowledge is a right!

    Like freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, the right to copy things is a right that exists above government. It is a moral right, it is an inherent right, it defines the very nature of the human condition. It is beyond politics and the petition of leaders.

    In fact, the entire foundation of politics rests on the notion that it's better to fight wars with words than wars with bloodshed. But to copy things does not require coercion or viloence at all, the rules are not the same. We will not change the copyright situation by petitioning our leaders, or voteing to change the system. No it can only be changed by defiance.

    Defiance by holding the belief that people have rights, even if those rights appear contrary to the popular mob or to the system. Defiance, by shedding off the guilt and shame that those who try to impose copyrights impose on us and understanding that they are the ones who should be guilty and shamefull. Defiance by copying and sharing creative works whenever we have acess to them. Defiance by using technologies that make it harder and harder for copyrights to be imposed upon us. And defi
    • by no reason to be here ( 218628 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:53AM (#5834662) Homepage
      Copyrights can and do benefit artists, when applied correctly. All the problems of the present copyright system are an outgrowth of the misapplication of copyright.

      Copyright is supposed to benefit the whole of society by making sure that creative people get some recompense for being creative. Furthermore, the copyright laws of the US include a provision for fair use (like burning a disc for your friend); however, we currently have a copyright system that exists soley for the profit of CEO's. Copyrights now never expire, making them couterproductive to their original purpose, and the scope of what is considered fair use is being reduced everyday.

      Simply ignoring copyright is not a solution. It gives the likes of Valenti and Rosen more amunition in their crusade for DRM and will lead to laws even worse than the DMCA.

      If copyright really were a temporary thing, lasting, at most, 28 years, like it is supposed to, we would be able to freely trade almost everything ever recorded by The Beatles, The Doors, Buddy Holly, Elvis, etc. A great many novels would enter the public domain. Many films would be free to distribute. There would be a plentiful, rich, and significant public domain. As it is, books written by men long dead at the beginning of last century are still under copyright, a short cartoon of a rat is still locked up, and Michael Jackson owns the rights to Jahn Lennon's music. I agree that system is bad, but I think just ignoring will make it worse. The RIAA/MPAA/etc. will have even more fuel for their fires, and will be able to get laws passed that make the situation even worse than it is already. Fight for a return of reasonable copyrights, and artists and consumers will benefit.
  • Right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by machine of god ( 569301 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:29AM (#5834368)
    Why are we writing their laws. We seriously have no business doing that. I mean, basic stuff like no murder, ok, but this?

    Or maybe we're going to write the laws, and then if their elected representative doesn't enforce them, we'll get a new representative. Or even better, we could help enforce them ourselves. Joy.

  • by acidrain69 ( 632468 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:29AM (#5834370) Journal
    this is why she retired/is retiring? Maybe it wasn't about Oil... it was really about securing all that Iraqi IP and Music! The REAL conspiracy is uncovered!
  • Cool! (Score:3, Funny)

    by banda ( 206438 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:29AM (#5834373)
    Is she willing to relocate? That would be awesome.
  • by truthsearch ( 249536 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:29AM (#5834378) Homepage Journal
    This will most certainly help the poor image of the US in the middle east. We're showing our strong corporate interests. It's such a nice, clean, humanitarian image the US partrays, isn't it?
  • by techstar25 ( 556988 ) <techstar25.gmail@com> on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:30AM (#5834383) Journal
    This is ironic since the Iraqi Information Minister has apparently been writing the RIAA's sales statistics reports.
  • by Skyshadow ( 508 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:30AM (#5834388) Homepage
    You know, it's refreshing that rather than being saddled laws which are based on wisdom and forward-thinking ideals, the Iraqis will be able to skip straight to having laws based on short-sighted greed.
  • by Mr2cents ( 323101 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:31AM (#5834390)
    So the war wasn't about oil after all.. It's about piracy! ;)
  • Is this reputable? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GuyMannDude ( 574364 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:31AM (#5834396) Journal

    I don't know -- reading the article didn't fill me with lots of confidence in the accuracy of this story. The whole tone seemed awfully biased to be a 'reputable' source. Can anyone else confirm this information from an alternate news source?

    GMD

  • by jalilv ( 450956 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:31AM (#5834398) Homepage
    There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this will make Iraqis hate Americans more and more. For God's sake please stay away from imposing our rules (and ways) on them. Thats probably the last thing you want to do if you want to prove that we are there for liberation and not to force ourselves on them.

    Jalil Vaidya
  • by American AC in Paris ( 230456 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:32AM (#5834402) Homepage
    "...there is no fair use! Fair use has not been seen within 300 miles of Baghdad! The power of copyright is absolute and unwavering, and it shall crush the infidels that would steal Iraqi music!"

    Hillary "Heinous Hil" Rosen, Iraqi I.P. Minister

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:33AM (#5834412)
    Isn't this equivalent to having Michael Jackson run a child care center???
  • Crazy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mattygfunk1 ( 596840 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:34AM (#5834426)
    "Where before, they feared Saddam Hussein, now they have to fear Sony Records will chop off their hands if they bootleg a Madonna album."

    While the quote is both a funny and insightful comment, it is truely a sad situation that we live in a world where this could happen under any circumstances.

    That said, with the freedoms we have we choose to go for a clearly biased party to create other countries laws.

    This is world is crazy.

    __
    cheap web site hosting and reseller packages [cheap-web-...ing.com.au]

    • Re:Crazy (Score:3, Funny)

      by Waffle Iron ( 339739 )
      These old-school legal systems usually try to fit the punishment to the crime. In order to more harmoniously integrate elements from Western IP law with the pre-existing system, I propose the following:

      Pirate a movie: Gouge out eyes
      Pirate a CD: Chop off ears
      Pirate software: Amputate soft tissue: goodbye buttocks
      Steal cable service: Death by hanging with coax cable noose
      Hack into system: Hacked to death with meat cleaver
      Mod-chipping game box: Death by soldering iron

  • by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:35AM (#5834441) Homepage Journal
    I'd swear I heard something about not making the Iraqi's endure american "culture", but I've noted the oil minister was one of the first put back to work (and suggesting Iraq may have to leave OPEC so they can sell lots more oil to pay Bechtel and Halliburton to rebuild their country.)

    I rather expect as soon as the minders are gone they'll do whatever they damn well please, and IP crap dumped on them from american special interests will chafe and be the first things to go or be utterly ignored.

    Maybe Jack Valenti can be embedded next time, eh?

    "That's right, Bob, we've found a stash of illegitimate Backstreet Boys CD's in An Nasaryah, so the president was certainly justified in this invasion!"

  • by Cutriss ( 262920 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:35AM (#5834442) Homepage
    Bush lauded the work being done to restore basic services and order in Iraq after Saddam's ouster, but warned "the building of a new Iraq will take time." He said the United States will help Iraqis create a democratic society.

    "America has no intention of imposing our form of government or our culture," he said. "Yet we will ensure that all Iraqis have a voice in the new government and all citizens have their rights protected."


    My emphasis added. That's what Bush said in a speech in Michigan on Monday to Iraqi-Americans. Guess we're tossing that one out the window...
    • Hate to be the Devil's advocate, but it's a matter of how you look at it.

      If you consider copyright to be a basic right of the people, ie, any work a man creates should be copyrighted, then it falls under protecting their basic rights - "...all citizens have their rights protected."

      Of course, I think that's absolute shite, but not a bad way wiggle out of it.
    • What?! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Skyshadow ( 508 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @11:02AM (#5834763) Homepage
      What's this? GWB saying one thing and then doing the complete opposite?

      I can't believe that. I'm sure that at least one of our proud 24-hour news stations would be all over that. Someone check the No-Spin Zone!

      Face it, folks: This is an administration which plays the press perfectly and gets away with an astounding amount of this bullshit. We're just lucky it's not in the US this time -- he could be appointing more Enron lackies to head the army or obviously business-biased people to set policy. And he gets away with it 'cause the 24 hour "news" channels don't have the will or the stones to make, afraid that they'll lose interviews or access or credibility among people who made the WWE and NASCAR such powerhouses.

      (sigh) Sorry, I guess my cynicism got out for a run again. I'm off to watch a few more hours of Fox News and MSNBC. Maybe I can hear another eloquent defense of that poor Senator from PA who's under attack by crazy lefties just because he hates homosexuals.

  • by BubbaTheBarbarian ( 316027 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:36AM (#5834458) Journal
    "All your music are belong to us."
    "You have no chance for fair use, make your time"

    "HA HA HA"

    "There are no file sharing programs in Bagdad...NEVER I tell you. May her stomach roast in hell."
    -MSS
  • by fobbman ( 131816 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:37AM (#5834465) Homepage
    Hilary Rosen? Is this allowable under the Geneva Conventions?

  • by spikexyz ( 403776 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:40AM (#5834497)
    Many in the world detest the United States for exporting the American culture of MTV and Disney. Now one person whose potential for increased wealth depends on this export is writing laws in other nations that will help to facilitate this globalization of American culture. This is sure to agitate some. Expect them to retaliate.

    It is also interesting that the United States, it seems, has freed the Iraqi people from the oppression of Sadam not in order to install an Iraqi run government but to install a government run by corporate America. Is this democracy?
  • by Phoenix666 ( 184391 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:42AM (#5834521)
    He simply got a sex change and changed his name to Hilary Rosen. Genius! Now he can rule both countries with an iron fist.
  • by mrscott ( 548097 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:43AM (#5834527)
    Senator Rick Santorum will be responsible for writing laws for Iraq regarding personal freedoms

    401(k) rules for Iraq will be written by former Enron and Worldcom executives

  • by mark-t ( 151149 ) <markt AT nerdflat DOT com> on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:44AM (#5834535) Journal
    ... or occupation?

    This whole issue sickens me, personally.

  • Testbed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by limekiller4 ( 451497 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:48AM (#5834586) Homepage
    This is a dream for the various IP-based companies (RIAA, MPAA, yadda yadda yadda). They get to literally create the laws from the ground up. Not with an eye toward keeping information maleable by the person holding the information but by protecting their profit margin. And none of the pesky and expensive lobbying they have to do now.

    It's a goddamn buffet for these people is what it is.

    Further, this is a testbed of sorts. Set up IP and observe how people fight to maintain their right to do what they wish with that information. Then, when they have brought the U.S. legislature to bear, they know how to seal things up pre-emptively.

    Watch what happens in Iraq, y'all. Because what Iraq turns into is precisely what megacorps would create -- and will, eventually -- if they had unfettered reign here.
  • Cultural Imperialism (Score:5, Interesting)

    by seven89 ( 303868 ) <rc.m3peeps@org> on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:48AM (#5834596) Homepage

    This news proves, in a weird way, that the recent war was about imposing "our" will (the will of a few well-connected insiders, actually) on Iraq, not on bringing it democracy.

    I'm reminded of the lyrics of on old Phil Ochs tune (and may the ghost of Phil forgive me if my quoting violates any of his rights):

    We'll ram through the streets of the cities we wreck

    And we'll find you a leader that you can elect.
    (Those treaties we signed were a pain in the neck!)
    'Cause we're the cops of the world, boys, we're the cops of the world.
  • by AftanGustur ( 7715 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:52AM (#5834647) Homepage


    A US corporate figure is going to have a word about how future LAW will look like in Iraq ???

    If there was any doubt that the USA is just acting in the interests of it's corporations, then that doubt is now dead.

  • by whovian ( 107062 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:52AM (#5834656)
    sould writes "The Register is reporting that Hilary Rosen is to assist in writing Iraq's Intellectual Property laws. Can't have those Iraqi's pirating Eminem now can we?"

    Depends on whether it's the US or the Iraqis who want the real Saddam Hussein to please stand up.
  • by NetDanzr ( 619387 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:54AM (#5834676)
    ...the source of the story: Democracy Now radio. It's a show at Pacifica.org, probably the most left-wing radio you can think of. While Democracy Now is still pretty decent by the radio's standards (for example, when a caller said that he wished more people died in the 9/11 attacks, the talk host didn't expressly agree with him as it happened on other shows of that radio), they are still highly unreliable. I don't trust some of the right-wing media, such as FOX News, but I trust even less what is being said on Democracy Now. Move on; there's nothing to see; the whole thing is most likely a hoax.
  • Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DaytonCIM ( 100144 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @11:07AM (#5834836) Homepage Journal
    The Bush Administration has stated over and over, VERY clearly that the Iraqi people are now "free" to build any government they want and "free" to write laws.

    However, recently the Bush Administration has stated that it is unacceptable if the Iraqi people attempt to build an Islamic government (like that in Iran). And, Rosen is "writing" Iraqi law?

    Does anyone see the double-standard here?

    "You're free, as long as you agree with what we think is best for you."
    • Re:Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lostboy2 ( 194153 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @11:40AM (#5835178)
      Does anyone see the double-standard here?

      Yes, and it makes me sad. This same double-standard permeates the National Security Strategy of the United States of America [whitehouse.gov], the doctrine adopted by GW Bush.

      The NSS talks in length about "freedom", but it's freedom as defined in the doctrine, which includes "free enterprise", "open trade" and the "right to own property".

      The undertone of this, in my opinion, is that we will not accept any culture who CHOOSES something different. Suppose, for example, every single person in a country decided to be communist, or decided not to support the WTO [wto.org].

      This doctrine suggests that they would be our enemy because they are not promoting our brand of "freedom." And this, I think, is why other countries think of us as "arrogant", because this doctrine suggests that we alone are capable of defining "freedom" and what is right for the rest of the world.

      Arg. This stuff makes my blood boil. :(

  • Okay, I'm sure this thread will be overbrimming with vitriol against Rosen, Bush, the RIAA, etc., but I encourage Slashdotters to, instead of, or in addition to, venting your frustration & anger here (a.k.a. preaching to the choir), write to anyone and everyone who has either the power to inform the world of this colonialism/nepotism/whatever it is, or to do something about it. The discussion at Slashdot is often excellent, but sometimes I worry that we spend too much time talking and not enough time fighting for what we so passionately argue for here.
  • by msaulters ( 130992 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @11:19AM (#5834983) Homepage
    They have announced they've resurrected Hitler to write the civil rights laws in the 'New' Iraq.

    Kenneth Lay will be spearheading the committee on democratic corporatism.

    Ronald Reagan will come out of retirement to direct the operations of the new Iraqi dept of mental health.

    Bush has assigned his brother, Jeb (who will be taking a paid leave of absence from his duties as Governor of Florida) to ensure the Iraqi people have free and full access to fair democratic elections.

    Larry Flynt is coming out of seclusion to assist with writing laws regulating morality in print media.

    Michael Jackson is relocating his 'Neverland' ranch to the outskirts of Baghdad so he can be on-hand to advise in the creation of child decency legislation.

    OJ Simpson, who recently discounted rumors that he would be starring in a new reality series, was asked to provide input on the formation of a forensic unit in the new Republican Republican Guard.

    Jeffrey Dahmer's memoirs were found to contain startling revelations that will help solve the problem of food shortages in no time.

    Finally, further tests have shown that 55-gallon barrels once thought to contain chemical weapons actually only held 'special sauce' for former President Bill Clinton's big macs. When questioned about the news, one coalition soldier in charge of the search said "Nope, nossir, we haven't found any WMDs yet. But, we do think we might have located Jimmy Hoffa."
  • IP and Islam? (Score:4, Informative)

    by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @11:33AM (#5835107) Homepage Journal
    I realize that Iraq is not an islamist nation in the sense that the laws of the land closely follow the teachings of the Koran as in Iran or Saudi Arabia, but Isn't intellectual property contrary to the teachings of Islam? this [khilafah.com] is what came up after a bit of google searching. Even though Iraq is largely secular, sending IP fanatics there to write their laws seems pretty culturally insensitive.
    • Re:IP and Islam? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TheSync ( 5291 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @12:22PM (#5835610) Journal
      Of course, when Christian Law dominated the West, it was called the "Dark Ages," but be that as it may, this is an interesting analysis...
      A'isha (RA) narrated: That Buraira came (to 'A'isha) and said, "I have made a contract of emancipation with my masters for nine ounces (of gold) to be paid in yearly instalments. Therefore, I seek your help." 'A'isha said, "If your masters agree, I will pay them the sum at once and free you on condition that your Wala' (loyalty) will be for me." Buraira went to her masters, but they refused that offer. She (came back) and said, "I presented to them the offer but they refused, unless the Wala' (loyalty) was for them." A'isha (RA) mentioned that to the Messenger of Allah (saw) so he said, "Do (it)" so she did. The Prophet (SAW) then got up and gave a speech to people, where he glorified and praised Allah, and said, " What about some people who impose conditions which are not present in the Book of Allah? So, any condition which is not present in the Book of Allah is invalid. Allah's ordinance is more deserving, and Allah's condition is more firm. Verily, the Wala is for the liberator." The wording (mantooq) of the hadith indicates that the condition which contradicts what is in the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger should not be adhered to. As long as the conditions of protecting intellectual property make the use of the sold asset restricted to one sort of benefit to the exclusion of another, then they are invalid conditions and contrary to what is in the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw). This is because it contradicts the requirement of the shar'i contract of selling, which enables the purchaser to freely dispose of and benefit from the asset in any legitimate manner such as selling, trade, gift etc. The conditions which prohibit the Halaal are invalid due to his (saw) saying: "The Muslims are bound by their conditions except a condition which forbids the Halaal or permits a Haraam." Therefore, it is not allowed in the Shar'a to protect publishing rights, copyrights and patents. Rather they are permissible rights. Thus, the thinker, scholar or inventor of a program owns his knowledge as long as his knowledge is with him and he has not taught it to others. However, once the knowledge went out to others through teaching, selling etc then the knowledge is no more his property. This is because it went out from his ownership when he sold it. So he does not possess the right to prevent others from freely disposing of it after its ownership has transferred to them through a shari'a means such as selling or other means.
  • Ulterior motives? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wayward_son ( 146338 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @12:30PM (#5835673)
    Yes, Iraq is becoming a corporate colony of the United States of America.

    There are far worse things it could be. The personal fiefdom of a brutal dictator, for example. However, the idea that the US is going in there for strictly altruistic reasons is pure B.S. The case that the invasion of Iraq was for national security reasons is not much stronger.

    It's not all about oil either, though oil plays a role. Iraq is an extremely large potential market for US goods and services.

    Here's the scenario:

    US Oil companies pump lots of oil out of Iraq. But at the same they pump money in to Iraq. This raises the standard of living for the Iraqi people causing them to demand more consumer goods and services.

    The same thing happens with the infrastructure. U.S. companies make lots of money rebuilding Iraq, but they also create Iraqi jobs in the process.

    The U.S. controlled government makes mutually favorable trade agreements with the US, giving the US an untapped and open market.

    US companies want laws favorable to their interests in Iraq, like they do in the US.

    Since no one will notice copyright laws when they have no running water, now is the time to enact laws that favor the corporation over the consumer.

    Don't get me wrong. I like capitalism. I like the free market. I supported the war in Iraq (to get rid of Saddam) Politically, I consider myself Conservative/Libertarian. I voted for Bush (or more accurately, against Gore)

    However, to say the Government is being less than honest with the American people in Iraq is an understatement.

  • by Snuffub ( 173401 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @12:33PM (#5835711) Homepage
    We should _encourage_ them to listen to eminem. I mean if it gets popular enough theyll all start hateing gay people and women instead of all americans.



    (note sarcasm)

  • Greg Palast (Score:4, Interesting)

    by senrik ( 69607 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @03:14PM (#5837360)
    Greg Palast has an interesting record regarding Investigative journalism. Unfortunately, because he actually does investigation, he is not quoted in the US.

    He was the first to talk about the Ballot issues within florida in the 2000 election, but when he tried to get it on the air in the US, (I believe it was with CBS), the editors there told him that his facts did not check out. When asked who they contacted to fact check, the editorial staff replied that they contacted Jeb Bush's office.

    I'm not one to believe what someone tells me is true, but, looking at the facts, and putting it all together leads to a certain way of thinking.

    1. Most of the government offices in Iraq were either bombed or looted. The only one not bombed or looted? the Oil ministry (thanks to US military guards. Source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/119505_oil2 8.html )

    2. The US will install a government loyal to itself, IE a Secular Democracy. This at the same time that the shrub is tearing away the separation between church and state here.

    3. People that oppose the bushes have a tendancy to get sued Source: http://www.utne.com/cgi-bin/udt/im.display.printab le?client.id=utne_web_specials&story.id=10452 or even killed. source: http://www.lovearth.net/fortunateson.htm)

  • by inkswamp ( 233692 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @03:14PM (#5837366)
    Don't you just love Bush's priorities in Iraq? Let countless, priceless antiquities in Iraq's museums, some of the oldest treasures mankind has, go to looters, thieves and Fox News cameramen, but let's make sure none of these Iraqis can steal music.

    Remember the good ol' days when the worst thing a president did was bang an intern? Doesn't seem quite so bad in perspective, now, does it?

  • Just one thing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by theolein ( 316044 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @03:32PM (#5837530) Journal
    There is no nation on this earth as good at making enemies as fast as you Americans do.
  • by theolein ( 316044 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @03:38PM (#5837584) Journal
    This choice bit of freedom loving news, along with the news that American soldiers fired into a crowd of demonstrators yesterday is sure to help the Iraqi people's view of the occupying armies as being something to ensure their freedom.

    I don't know what's going to happen in Iraq in the long term but I know that it isn't going to be nice.
  • by Vegan Pagan ( 251984 ) <<ten.knilhtrae> <ta> <sanaed>> on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @03:45PM (#5837648)
    As you can read here [newint.org] and here [overclockers.com], USA benefitted from IP theft in 1790 when Samuel Slater stole the blueprints of the the water-powered spinning frame from England and used it to build a textile industry in USA comparable to England's. England called him a traitor, but USA called him a hero and the father of the industrial revolution. Today, USA is the capitol of IP and China benefits whenever they steal some.

    Most likely, enforcing US IP laws in Iraq will help USA but hurt Iraq.
  • Satire is dead (Score:3, Informative)

    by nagora ( 177841 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @04:17PM (#5837904)
    Hillary Rosen is writing IP laws while Robert Zoellick is put in charge of a World Trade Organisation in Mexico, according to this Department of State PR [state.gov].

    Zoellick is a former advisor to Enron.

    Colin Powell is reported in a later PR [state.gov] to have said "that power usually comes responsibility and some level of respect and some level of resentment -- my three R's. Hey, write that down." (Laughter.)

    Presumably the laughter was coming from Mr Joe "I wasn't responsible" Zoellick's end of the table.

    TWW

UNIX enhancements aren't.

Working...