Infringement 'Detrimental To the Public Health, Safety' 348
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has declared that copyright infringement 'substantially interferes with the interest of the public in the quality of life and community peace, lawful commerce in the county, property values, and is detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the county's citizens, its businesses and its visitors.' You might laugh, but that means they can close up a property for up to one year for violations of the anti-infringement ordinance [PDF] and the owner can be fined $1,000 for each infringing work produced on site. Not to mention the penalties in the PRO-IP Act, which just sailed through the House."
So what's it gonna take... (Score:5, Insightful)
I imagine all but a few of the candidates are squarely in the camp of the MPAA/RIAA if they are aware of copyright issues at all.
But more Americans use filesharing than will vote in the election - or at least I know that more shared files in 2003, when I found the figures, than voted for George Bush in 2000.
Re:So what's it gonna take... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So what's it gonna take... (Score:5, Funny)
(perfect setup for the response)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:So what's it gonna take... (Score:4, Interesting)
Kidding aside, Obama does speak about reforming the whole intellectual property system (especially patents, which I do realize are different from copyrights and trade marks), albeit with sort of vague language. It's hard to quantify what exactly he means when he talks about reform, but hey at least he realizes something is wrong with the way we're going. Don't take my word for it, though. [barackobama.com]
I've looked at the other two candidates statements and again find nothing definitive. So I see it breaking down like this. Obama talks about rewriting intellectual property, writes some dream bill, only to have it obliterated in Congress due equally to his lack of commitment and Congress's general distaste for effective legislation. McCain and Clinton would probably be open to reform, but would jump at the chance to think of the children and gravitate towards anything that hurts filing sharing due to the whole child pornography thing.
In the end, there just aren't enough people that care. Now if we could find some way to relate copyright reform to gasoline prices, we might have a shot. People don't realize how important competent legislation is when it comes to an economy that becomes more dependent on the rapid share of information every day. The legal morass doesn't end with the MPAA and RIAA. We have patent trolls and perpetual litigators making things worse for everyone.
Re:So what's it gonna take... (Score:5, Insightful)
All that "I promise lower taxes, more money, better education, this and that" are all LIES. I don't care if the President is Jesus Christ himself, unless he has Congress to propose legislation he can't approve it.
Now, if you really want to blame this on somebody, I hear your congressmen takes letters. Mine does, but he ignores them.
Re:So what's it gonna take... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm all with you, but getting copyright reform is going to be hard enough without bringing up marijuana reform too.
-
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Iraq & Afganistan
International respect for America
The economy
It was congress that fucked up the privacy, its only congress that can fuck up the laws.
But hey im not from america so im not 100% sure this is the case?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So what's it gonna take... (Score:5, Funny)
Because you sign them with 'Anonymous Coward'?
sorry.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That scares the hell out of me. Any time a a politican talks about "intellectual pooperty reform" the copyright length is even longer and fair use rights are further eroded.
I've looked at the other two candidates
You mean Wayne Allyn Root [lp.org] and Cynthia McKinney [gp.org]? Don't you mean three? The Republicans are running some guy or another, too, you know
Obama ta
Re:So what's it gonna take... (Score:5, Insightful)
The real issue that we face is that IP issues are simply boring to the average voter. Most people don't own patents and don't feel that copyright law affects them in any way. They are much more interested in what J. Wright blabbers on about than about issues that have an effect on the economy; such as IP laws.
(And yes, I think voters are morons. disclaimer - I've lived in Germany for a few years and have developed the same opinion of the average German voter. It seems that people are just stupid.)
Your best bet is an advertising campaign to raise awareness of the issues. Until that happens, we are in the wilderness dude.
Re:So what's it gonna take... (Score:5, Insightful)
america: most popular tv news network: FOX [wikipedia.org]
uk: most popular news paper The sun [wikipedia.org]
just look up thier most popular news network/paper and you'll realise how fscked you are.
The problem is that idiots are very easy for big corporations to guide, and while they cant agree on everything, they sure as hell like copyright & IP.
It's not that people are stupid (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For the sake of completeness (Score:2)
According to the Wikipedia article their sales are declining, however, so there is still hope for Germany
Re:So what's it gonna take... (Score:5, Insightful)
There, fixed that for you. :)
Don't forget NPR (Score:3, Insightful)
At this point, NPR is pretty far to the right as well. Just how far was driven home to me the other day when they were talking about Berry Goldwater, and the comment was made that his views were "pretty consistently liberal by todays standards." There was a round of hearty agreement from the panel and no one seemed to recognize the significance of what they were saying.
If Barry Goldwater looks like a leftist to you, you have
Re:So what's it gonna take... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what's it gonna take... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been evident for a long time that it can't be stopped. Any attempt to lock stuff down that people don't like immediately produces workarounds. I'd argue the opposite: I think the public interest is served by the availability of information. Whether or not people have to engage in one to one market transactions to fund its creation is a secondary issue. No matter how many times the contrary is repeated, information is not property in the same way that a car is. Making the rules for it the same ignores this obvious fact.
My guess is that a lot of politicians welcome the money because they know that they'll never be able to do anything about it, so they'll stay cool with the public. Look at how many politicians take money from anti-abortion groups in full knowledge that they can rant and rave about abortion, but the law is unlikely to change.
Re:So what's it gonna take... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So how long have they been trying to get people to stop smoking marijuana now? They haven't given up yet, have they?
I think the public interest is served by the availability of information.
Which is why they fight availability of information. In the US, the public interest is always trum
Controlling information (Score:4, Insightful)
Intellectual property = information.
It does not matter how much anyone would like it to be a physical property, be it you or me or the RIAA / MPAA. If it can be represented in a digital form, it is information.
The purpose of a computer is to copy and transform information.
The purpose of the Internet is to copy and transform information on a global scale.
Like it or not, the biggest change in civilization the last 20 years have been about moving digital information. Computers does not differ between types of information, they just move (copy) a huge number of ones and zeros from one place to another. The Internet is basically a colossal copyright infringement machine.
I worry a lot about "Intellectual Property". I can understand their worried and justified claims on the content industry, but no matter how you twist and turn this it boils down to "controlling information".
There is no difference between different kinds of information. If intellectual property could be controlled, all information could be controlled. This includes any information any government would declare "illegal".
If anyone could control who copies a Hollywood blockbuster, they could also control who copies other information that makes the government look bad. Like a video of police brutality or any violation of human rights.
Controlling information
Re: (Score:2)
As dismal as the copyright situation is, it's still an issue easily ignored by the majority. There's a hundred things ahead in line that a politician would prefer to earn attention with.
perspective (Score:2)
Re:perspective (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's put things into perspective then....
The reason you have such a big uproar and draconian "IP" legislation being presented in the first place is because it is the only thing the US has left of its industry. Everything from steal to food production has been outsourced to the maximum extent possible. The dregs that are left behind are the service industries like McDonalds. The only thing in the US bigger than government grant of monopoly is government contracting which is another form of monopoly I won't go into here.
That's why you see term extensions on the monopoly grant. That's why you see legislation proposing criminal prosecution instead of civil.
A little off topic but related was the BRAC Commission hearings. I never saw so many congress critters crawl out of the woodwork as I did when they were proposing the closure of military bases. Again, it comes down to the US not having any real industry. Close the bases and watch whole towns dry up. It's the same with "IP".
Re:So what's it gonna take... -Until- (Score:3, Funny)
You only think it's about entertainment. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what's so insidious about the current copyright reign of terror. It's not about AC/DC, it's about freedom of press and without that you and I will never learn of those other serious abuses you are talking about. Real families have already been thrown out of their homes and stripped of their life savings on the flimsiest of evidence about sharing RIAA crap that both of us can agree is trivial. If it's so trivial, why submit to such massive punishment? Don't be fooled, though, this is all about control of public knowledge, opinion and culture. It includes control of entertainment but it's also about domestic spying and neutralization of political opposition such as yourself.
Re:So what's it gonna take... (Score:4, Insightful)
just where in the world do you rate a bootleg copy of ironman in relations to anyones right to a decent life outside of the threat of harm or oppression from the government?
i can't believe this is still coming out of people's mouths after how politicized slashdot has become. it's truely pathetic.
Re:So what's it gonna take... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want a full review, check out http://www.iprcommission.org/home.html
People, such as the grandparent, need to stop simply associating copyright infringement with downloading movies for free and see the real damage IP laws and regulations do to millions of lives throughout the world.
Re:So what's it gonna take... (Score:5, Insightful)
But today there are people going to sleep hungry, and sleeping in the streets, and constitutional rights are being trampled. One could argue that our politicians and governments do too much to protect IP, and not enough to address these very real problems -- that by electing officials that agree that too much is spent on enforcing copyright and not enough on social ills is we could attempt to set that balance right.
Slashdot discussions may have become too politicized for some of us, but this topic is not a good example of that, since it is about politics and government. I think your comment's (Anonymous) parent got modded flamebait because it started with: "are you fucking kidding me? i tell you what assfuck". Sometimes a reader will stop right there without considering the remainder of one's well-thought-out argument.Re:So what's it gonna take... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the argument that incentives for the production of music wouldn't exist without imaginary property interference were true (which they aren't), then musicians would find it more profitable to become farmers, increasing the supply of food, decreasing the price of food, and leading to less starving people.
The government ethanol subsidies are a perfect example of interference in the free market that mimics the effect of copyright and patent. Shortages of other productions result in higher prices for other things. People devote scarce resources to producing things the free and voluntary actions of consumers and producers show are less worthwhile production activities as evidenced by economic supply and demand.
So we have a flood of people trying to make a living as artists, producing crap, copying the hell out of each other's ideas anyway, and sitting on their asses collecting government interference subsidized welfare.
The broken window fallacy applies perfectly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window [wikipedia.org]
Re:So what's it gonna take... (Score:4, Funny)
Heck they even have a web site! [familyvideo.com]
Somebody stuck a kiosk in the grocery store with this stolen intelectual pooperty! And the store owner let them!
And... damn it there's some kid setting up a stolen movie stand right there in front of my house! HEY KID, get that intellectual pooperty the hell off my lawn before I call the cops!
mumble grumble disrespectful mumble where's my glasses grumble itellectual pooperty grumble grumble mumble
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have confused the concept of "rights" and "obligations".
Just because people have the right to affordable food doesn't mean that anyone has the obligation to provide it.
To force supermarkets to lower their prices infringes on their right to charge whatever they feel like for products (what the free market will bear).
So what people are really talking about when they say "people ought to have the right to (fill in the bla
Re:So what's it gonna take... (Score:4, Funny)
What now, asshole?
Re:So what's it gonna take... (Score:4, Insightful)
Interestingly people call on democracy also when they do not understand what it really means. People can democratically decide to do things that result in human rights violation and destruction of whole countries e.g. Saarland has decided once to join third Reich in such a way (plebiscite on 13 Jan 1935) although people knew there is an politically and racially oppressive regime at power (I am sure there are many other examples) so democracy is not the only thing that we need to live well.
Re:So what's it gonna take... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no way, enough ignorant people will admit their deficiency and support implementation of such such education system in a democratic way.
There is no way, in a republic, politicians will support public education because it is not a popular position among ignorant people.
There is no way, in Capitalist economy businesses will support public education, because it will decrease their control over consumers.
The only way to do it, is for smart people to manipulate powerful elite and its decadent culture into forcing education onto the masses. When the next generation of people will get an idea WTF they are doing and talking about, maybe they will find a use for democracy, socialism, market, or whatever other things that are now touted to be important for the welfare of mankind. But until then, long live oppression.
Seriously, long live oppression, the only way to get rid of oppression.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
pirate things, it's about the threat of accusation being dangerous enough to be
used as an effective form of control and oppression.
This is just the latest in a long line of similar measures like RICO, drug
enforcement and non-crimes they use to grasp at someone they can't otherwise
convict of some real crime (Capone,Stewart).
This always happens (Score:5, Informative)
Then the people rebel, and the cycle starts over again.
Re:This always happens (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This always happens (Score:5, Insightful)
While your statement makes for a nice soundbite, it's vastly far from true. There are plenty of countries, including the US, that have extended political power to formerly disenfranchised groups.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mind if I
Re:This always happens (Score:5, Insightful)
Claiming that government just serves some arbitrary elite makes for great teenage "down with the man!" soundbites, but it doesn't account for the fact that there are movements in both directions. Nor does it account for the fact that a lot of it is a matter of perception: It's easy to view a silent majority that you disagree with as a special interest; it's vastly easier than admitting that democracy works both ways.
Re:This always happens (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This always happens (Score:5, Insightful)
Back then, only landed white men got the vote for a government that served the interests of those landed white men.
Then it all changed: women and minorities also got to vote for a government that served the interests of the landed white men.
Viva la Revolucion!
And in the mean time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And in the mean time (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This always happens (Score:4, Funny)
Re:This always happens (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, actually, for several reasons:
Of course, the issue (at least in the case of the U.S) isn't that simple. You also have to consider the effects of the gradual failing of federalism, etc.
Re:This always happens (Score:5, Insightful)
Couldn't agree more. I've been saying that for years, though not quite as elegantly.
I believe that in this society, the only effective way to vote is with ones wallet.
Vote wisely.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed, we live in plutocracies, and the USA is the most blatant example of one, where
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Damn candlyland optimists (* footnote).
The problem isn't a few powerful evil elites.
Who do you think chooses who gets on the ballot? The typical general public, in the party primaries. It is reasonably easy for pretty much anyone to get on the primary ballot if they really want to - as Stephen Colbert demonstrated as a gag.
No, the problem is people.
People are stupid irrational short sighted selfserving herd animals.
All of us are stupid irrational short sighted selfse
Re: (Score:2)
Vote != power (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As a matter of fact, yes, mainly because voting is a disservice to the voters.
Voting has a much longer history than what you call democracy. Kings used to be elected, and so is the Pope. In the USSR they used to vote all the time, too, over a mind-numbinlgy high number of otherwise mundane things - too bad voting and democracy actually have little relationship with ea
Re:This always happens (Score:5, Insightful)
The constitution is supposed to allow us to fix the government without it coming to that, but it doesn't seem to be working. So what changes do we need to make to the constitution to make it work? Not that the congress will allow us a convention to fix it.
We have a president who doesn't care what the constitution says at all. We have 2 out of 3 presidential candidates who voted to cede the decision to declare war from the congress to the president. How that isn't even an issue still boggles my mind. Even if you thought going into Iraq was a good idea you shouldn't have voted for that bill. But I digress. We're likely going to hand over the presidency to someone who has already proven they can't uphold the constitution.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Here's my suggestion, just fuse together all the amendments to the Constitution and simply it into:
Congress shall make no law.
Re:This always happens (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a simple and legal way out. (Score:2, Troll)
The media, movies, web, just about everything is full of proud Americans banging on about the freedoms enshrined in the constitution, but it seems you guys don't know how to use them. Obvious corrupt crap like this which is precisely what your 2nd amendment is for.
Now it may seem like I'm trolling here, but stay with me a moment. Your right to bare arms is not there so you can all be badass gangstas, cowboys or teenage psycho-killers. It's so you can remind your governments at all levels that they serve yo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why bother to protest? The last time protests had any real effect on anything were during the Vietnam War era. People are apathetic not because they are truly antipathetic to doing something---not because they are lazy or because they don't disagree with what's happening---but rather because they are disillusioned as a result of years or even decades of witnessing the utter futility of their best efforts.
The only two things that will cure that sort of ingrained and reinforced apathy are A. things becomi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which had huge, world-changing consequences such as a recession that followed it, all sorts of military actions that are still being played out at vast cost to all of those involved in them, and a whole bunch of other stuff.
"Yeah, they shocked the world, but if it hadn't been for the mass sensationalism and rabid irrational fear that followed we wouldn't find ourselves in the situa
That's funny (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's funny (Score:4, Interesting)
"copyright infringement...is detrimental to the public health..."
I don't type "WTF" much, but WTF?
It looks like Tim Ball was right when he wrote, "For years I wondered what extremists provide to any debate. I've learned it is to define the limits for the majority. By taking extreme positions they cause the majority to say, hold on, now you are going too far.".
Re: (Score:2)
I thought, it just reached bottom and kinda stays there, copyright or no copyright -- are we really worse off than when Britney Spears was at the height of her career?
The blade cuts both ways (Score:5, Interesting)
--jeffk++
Re:The blade cuts both ways (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly Zero.
Free Software doesn't pay politicians under the table, nor send Paris Hilton to your
weekend get-togethers. RMS is a poor substitute.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I would like to note that the Submitter is "I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property". If that's the case, Mr. Submitter, then the GPL should be thrown out too.
Mod Parent Up... Then Answer Him -EOM- (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL is a license that enforces "copyright" for the explicit purpose of fitting in to the current legal system. Were copyright to be greatly reformed or abolished completely, you're completely right that the GPL would immediately become as worthless as every other license, BUT it also wouldn't be necessary anymore.
True, the landscape would look very different, and the real "forced openness" that the GPL gives would be gone as well (unless that was framed in the new copyright laws, but I can NEVER imagi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine! Why? If file sharing becomes legal, then we wouldn't need the GPL anymore because closed-source would cease to be economically feasible anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To generalize, monopolies lead to mono
Studios, producer's homes, government offices (Score:2, Funny)
What they don't tell you... (Score:5, Funny)
Copywrong (Score:4, Insightful)
As much as I want artists to be fairly compensated, I strongly disagree with the application of copyright law. Litigation never solved anything in this world, it only creates more hatred for one another. It goes against the very purpose of law by promoting and supporting inequality, which is directly detrimental to the health and safety of everyone.
forgotten about producers, have we? (Score:3, Interesting)
But in Los Angeles, as someone else noted, you have the center of the movie industry, and one of the centers of the music industry. If it is correct that the fact that millions of people are distributing tunes and movies for free is depriving the folks in LA County who make music and movies of their income, then, yeah, I'd say there is a big impact on the LA economy. If movie companies and recording companies
Re: (Score:2)
You're only looking at this from the consumer end, which is hardly surprising given that this is /.
But in Los Angeles, as someone else noted, you have the center of the movie industry, and one of the centers of the music industry. If it is correct that the fact that millions of people are distributing tunes and movies for free is depriving the folks in LA County who make music and movies of their income, then, yeah, I'd say there is a big impact on the LA economy.
Well, if that's the case, then I'm sure the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has independant studies & surveys to backup every one of their specific points.
Namely that piracy substantially interferes with:
1. the interest of the public in
1.a the quality of life
1.b community peace
2. lawful commerce in the county
3. property values
AND
4. is detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of
4.a the county's citizens
4.b its businesses
4.c its visitors
OR since "The regulation was crafted at the urg
Maybe Not (Score:5, Informative)
From the ordinance (note the use of the terms "improperly labelled" and "sell"):
Then again, maybe my reading of it is incorrect. That's not to say laws don't have a funny way of being interpreted and reinterpreted, or used opportunistically by law enforcement. Worst case scenario? Instead of having your car impounded when you find yourself driving down Sunset Boulevard late one Saturday evening looking for blackjack and hookers and meeting up with an undercover officer, you get your car impounded for what's playing on your iPod.
Yeah right (Score:3, Insightful)
"It's only for going after terrorists, pedophiles and drug dealers. Common people have nothing to fear. Trust us." Seriously people, why do you keep gobbling on this bullshit?
War on drugs all over again (Score:3, Insightful)
It scares that there maybe those who actually believe these things they say about "copyright infringement". As if (US) American prisons aren't full enough, I predict the government building new ones for to hold the dam pirates. Colonial attacks against real pirates only barely succeeded, and being a sea fearing pirate takes energy. Copyright infringement takes much less energy.
And on a side note, could you guys "pirating" via cameras in theatres just stop it? At least out of respect for art in general. There is currently no good way to duplicate a movie via cam, the quality is terrible. If people can't wait for it to come out dvd let them buy a ticket to the nearest theatre.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
California knows how to party. (Score:2)
Land of the not so free and home of the stupid. I lived in CA for six years, nothing they come up with surprises me a bit.
This is probably invalid (Score:2)
US federal copyright law explicitly preempts state copyright laws. I suspect therefore that this ordinance is invalid. (Cities, counties, etc. are delegated their powers by the state, so the fact that this is a county ordinance not a state law makes no difference, I don't think.) Any lawyers out there want to confirm or deny this?
That is Okay (Score:3, Funny)
That is okay. Los Angeles is "detrimental to public health [and] safety". This is just another reason to avoid that noxious cesspool.
It is too bad the PRO-IP act is not confined to a similarly avoidable geographical expanse.
Can you blame them? (Score:3, Insightful)
I can see it now.... (Score:2)