White House Cracks Down On Piracy & Counterfeiting 323
GovTechGuy writes "On Tuesday the White House made a show of rolling out an expansive new strategy to combat online piracy and counterfeit goods, to the delight of industry groups. The plan emphasizes targeting foreign websites that host pirated software and movies and increasing the number of investigations and prosecutions by the FBI, FTC, and Justice Department. Here is the complete plan, introduced by the new 'copyright czar,' Victoria Espinel."
The people lose again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
the major parties fail to work for the benefit of the people, and focus instead on the interests of large corporations
Was there a 3rd party candidate for presidency who was running on a platform which included "Don't do anything to enforce intellectual property rights?" And if so, is the reason they didn't get elected -really- because they weren't with one of the two parties?
Because if not, then it might not be an issue with the parties, it might be an issue with an apathetic public and several industries having effective lobbying campaigns that would work to their benefit whether there were two parties or a hundred.
Money
Re: (Score:2)
it might be an issue with an apathetic public
But if the MPAA is correct, the people aren't apathetic, they are simply doing what they believe is right. The laws should conform to the people in most cases, not the other way around. If the people believe that downloading music is right, then perhaps the laws should be revised.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Find me a candidate who says that is what I'm saying.
Re: (Score:2)
But depending on the candidates, various Libertarian/Constitution party members will oppose intellectual "property" in its current form based on various extensions from the original constitution which contains much more sane terms. Of course some of them actively support it, so it just really depends on the candidate.
Re:The people lose again (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Consider also that the MPAA has been caught "pirating" both movies and software. There are only interested in protecting their "intellectual property". Quite possibly some of what they claim as "theirs" actually isn't...
Re:The people lose again (Score:5, Insightful)
Was there a 3rd party candidate for presidency who was running on a platform which included "Don't do anything to enforce intellectual property rights?" And if so, is the reason they didn't get elected -really- because they weren't with one of the two parties?
Is it even possible for a candidate, any candidate, to run without a budget of at least a couple hundred million? And if not, is it any surprise that the choices you get can be quickly summarized as corporate whores A through D?
Re:The people lose again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>the same corporations that are waging a campaign to bankrupt college students, instead of working to making college education more affordable.
College already is damn cheap. At state schools about half the tuition is covered by taxpayers. Plus your professors earn very little salary and would actually be better-off quitting & going to work in industry (about $30,000 per year more). And the room rental works out to just $11-12 per night.
I think college is actually quite cheap, and I wish
Re:The people lose again (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow. You must be insanely naive. Every PhD level candidate (successful or not) has more or less the same story these days -- they work far harder than their counterparts in "private sector". The main reason is competition and the pressure to publish and teach. Its not easy getting your PhD, and its even harder to get tenure and be successful. If anything most of these qualified people are quitting early at the Masters level to find jobs, or after being a PhD level prof for a while, leaving universities to g
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Son,
When I went to college, rates had gone up and it cost me $1500 a semester for a full load. This was about 20 years ago.
College rates have gone up insanely fast compared to everything else except medical care.
I graduated college debt free. without student loans. I didn't have to do any of that crap because college used to be affordable.
It's not any more.
I read about students graduating with $50k, $100k, and even $550k in debt and it makes me really sad for the kids today.
Open your eyes, they are takin
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In Sweden schooling is not only free but you also get around $800 each month while you study. Some of it is a special kind of loan but a smaller part you don't need to pay back.
This is enough that most students don't need to take an extra job on the side.
USA might be the "land of opportunity" but in Sweden we believe that one of the best ways to give everyone a chance is to make certain they can go to any school they want. If you are smart enough to get in, money shouldn't be an object. We want the best not
Re: (Score:3)
Dude. My daughter goes to UCSD. My cost (in-state) for one year? $28K -- counting tuition, room, board, books, and fees.
That's IN STATE. My younger daughter is considering UW. That would set me back about $38K per year.
Re:The people lose again (Score:5, Interesting)
Student loans provided by the Federal Gov. have the same effect as mortgage loans provided by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae- they raise the price of the underlying product. Just like cheap credit inflated the cost of housing, gov. provided loans are inflating the cost of education. In addition, educational institutions like to tempt students with the promise of high paying jobs (just like that house will be worth more in the future!), leading many students into oppressive debt burdens. Unlike many home loans, however, default on a student loan is a lot more problematic.
If education had less government subsidy, it would probably be cheaper or at least more cost effective. Everything the government subsidizes to "help the people" distorts markets by raising the price or over production. It can also encourage other risky behaviors. [minyanville.com] This is not to be confused with long lead time gov. led efforts, such as basic research, environmental studies and the like, in which a "market" either would not exist or would be dysfunctional due to lack or participants. Government clearly has important roles. Providing student loans is not one of them.
Re:The people lose again (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything the government subsidizes to "help the people" distorts markets by raising the price or over production.
Anytime someone says "Everything the government [does is bad]" you know they're whargarbling ideology and are not dealing with reality.
That aside, most markets are already distorted for a variety of governmental and non-govermental reasons, long before government subsidies get involved.
Re:The people lose again (Score:4, Insightful)
Congratulations! You win the first Idiocy Award for conflating physical with intellectual goods as if the distinction hasn't been made millions of times in prior discussions. Bend over and accept your award.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true, but for virtual goods, there is a non-zero (and sometimes significant) creation cost to create the first copy, and creators try to use repeated sales of the good to cover that creation cost.
Re:The people lose again (Score:4, Insightful)
try
Exactly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a radio host named Alex Jones who gives his stuff away for free (via internet) or for purchase (physical copy), but he doesn't seem to be going bankrupt. He still rakes-in plenty of cash. There are probably other examples, but Jones is the first one that popped into my head.
POINT: Just because the net exists doesn't mean the company will disappear. There are enough people who prefer physical product (like me) that they will continue raking-in millions each year. For them to claim they "lose"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Completely agree. But that cost is recouped many times over, if the product is any good, within the first 5 years or so. Yet, for goods that can be reproduced digitally the cost never goes down after the cost is recouped.
The RIAA and MPAA are losing business because of their own retarded business practices and refusal to fully embrace the Net as a means of low-cost distribution.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between a physical good and a virtual good. Virtual goods (such as digital music, software, music, etc.) can (and are) copied endlessly with little to no cost. The same cannot be said of food and other physical goods.
That's true, but for virtual goods, there is a non-zero (and sometimes significant) creation cost to create the first copy
And that's not true for real-world goods? So the prototype for the computer you're using right now just created itself out of thin air?
DarkKnightRadick is correct - the difference between virtual and non-virtual goods is that virtual goods have a zero or near-zero marginal cost.
Re:The people lose again (Score:5, Insightful)
No. They are not virtual goods either. Your close, but missing something. Both terms imply that theft, at some level, in some context can occur. Theft of intellectual property is in impossibility, by the very definitions of the words involved. The cost, or effort, of copying is also irrelevant.
When you give your money for the shiny piece of plastic, you are also granted license rights, that we The Peeps (aka Government), granted copyright holders to bestow upon others.
Only one thing happens when you "pirate" or receive a digital copy of a copyrighted work without compensating the copyright holder: Infringement . The definition, "A violation, as of a law, regulation, or agreement; a breach." does not, and never has, implied Theft which has the definition, "(Law) Criminal law the dishonest taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession".
Now a copyright can be viewed as physical property, but that is the copyright itself. To permanently deprive somebody of their copyright means I somehow transferred those legal entitlements to myself and started receiving money and granting others license to use that work, per my newly and illicitly acquired intellectual property rights.
All of the analogies to physically stealing anything are complete and utter tripe based on fallacious logic, and deliberate misinterpretation of law. Content companies (derogatorily referred to as Big Media) would love to have the act of Infringement conflated with Theft. It serves their purpose to have the public incorrectly associate the two to accomplish fear mongering.
Of course the fact, that no college student or citizen has ever been convicted of theft of an MP3 seems to make no difference. Defendants are always sued for damages as it relates to the acts of infringement in a civil court and not a criminal court. No district attorney has ever prosecuted criminal charges against an ordinary citizen for what we consider to be piracy because it is pointless. It does not meet the definition of criminal levels of infringement which traditionally require intent to profit financially or large scale distribution. Those have been amended in recent times, but nonetheless, nobody has ever been prosecuted criminally for it, despite the fact that torrents and file sharing have involved distribution at what some consider to be large scale.
It makes very little sense, and I don't support piracy. However, I don't support the type of ignorance you were replying to either and it always motivates me to put out yet another post hoping to educate people on what a copyright really is.
Re: (Score:2)
wait, what?
Re:The people lose again (Score:4)
Then you would have no problem with people stealing music CDs in stores and leaving $0.10 at the counter, correct? After all, that's all it costs to produce, am I right? Consumers get to decide the cost for all products, yes?
The adults are trying to have a rational discussion here. RIAA shills and/or stupid people are simply not invited.
Re:The people lose again (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a crime against the consumer to force them to keep a product they don't like.
How is it a "crime"? Were you forced into buying the product? Was the product defective? Was the product exactly as it was advertised when sold? I'm sorry, but I see nothing criminal in the fact that a store isn't obligated to accept returns on things that are neither faulty nor were sold under fraudulent terms (and no, the fact that you didn't like it doesn't make the sale fraudulent).
Re: (Score:2)
Was the product defective? Was the product exactly as it was advertised when sold? I'm sorry, but I see nothing criminal in the fact that a store isn't obligated to accept returns on things that are neither faulty nor were sold under fraudulent terms (and no, the fact that you didn't like it doesn't make the sale fraudulent).
Go buy 'White Noise' on DVD, watch it, then tell us how much you support the no-returns policy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I liked that movie. A better example might be Uwe Boll's "Alone in the Dark" or "House of the Dead". You buy this crap from Walmart. Should you be forced to keep it? No.
I don't care if some future government law merely says Walmart has to give me store credit - it's still better than throwing-away $15 on shit. Hell even candy bar makers warranty their products ("if unsatisfied return the unused portion for a refund"). Why can't record and movie companies follow that example?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why can't record and movie companies follow that example?
They don't understand that as long as people are having fun the money will roll towards them. What kills me is 10 years ago Paramount was trying to take down screen grabs of Star Trek from fan sites.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That sure sounds like a system that is designed to favor the rich and powerful corporation
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If Wal
Re: (Score:2)
Any proper music shop will let you listen to the music before you buy it, as will any online shop. Or you can just go to the artist's web page/Myspace page/etc. So your entire argument is ridiculous, which isn't a surprise considering you apparently shop at Wal-Mart.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Most people might read the back cover, maybe the first chapter, read a few reviews online, and decide. Especially if they've read other works by that author. But the whole book?
Yes, most people. See, that is the key. Most people don't have enough free time to sit down and read an entire book. But the thing is, they don't stop you if you read the entire book. Same thing with an album or DVD, few people are going to sit down and watch/listen to the entire thing, or same thing with games, but why stop them? Our entire economy is based on convenience, I have broadband because its more convenient than dial-up, I've got a car because its a whole lot easier to drive 15 miles to work ev
Re:The people lose again (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't need entitlement to download a song any more than you need entitlement to listen to it on the radio. Sending and receiving information is a fundamental right. It's you who needs entitlement to curtail this right in any way, and strong entitlement at that.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>How is it a "crime"?
In nearly-all jurisdictions it is a crime for a company to sell an inferior product and then refuse to refund money. Even in "as is" cases the courts have ruled that the company must refund the customer, if the company claimed the product was working but in fact did not work. The legal system is designed to protect the customer and charge companies with crimes if they don't obey these laws. (See U.S. v. Warner Records, Sony, et al. from ten years ago.)
.
>>>Was the
Re: (Score:2)
> How is it a "crime"? ...how quickly the corporate toadies forget about the rule of law when it suits their agenda.
There is actually a set of standardized state laws that govern this very thing.
It's called the Uniform Commercial Code. This is what normally makes a company like Walmart liable for selling you junk.
The only reason that Walmart and BestBuy won't accept DVD returns is the fact that this anti-piracy hysteria predates the Internet and Big Content has always had clout.
Buy the textbook or fail the class. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe he mentioned that when he said "If I was able to buy stuff, discover it is shit".
Was the product exactly as it was advertised when sold?
More often than not, when discussing the kinds of intellectual property these organizations are trying to protect, the answer is no. Every movie is advertised as if it's the greatest story that's ever been told in a way that will make your grandchildren cry and all of these reviewers said things like "brilliant", "best movie eve
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course the fact that every movie avail on DVD has been out in the theaters already, and reviewed.... and music albums are played on radio stations regularly, and streamed...
Yeah you are right. Walmart is the problem you buy crappy DVD's and music, not you. They absolutely should take back that opened container that you absolutely did not RIP to your media server at home...
Please...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please tell me where I can listen to Juno Reactor's Labyrinth on the radio.
Or, right. Only popular swill gets played (over and over and over and over) on the radio.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Downloading is not the same as stealing, but when you make a copy of a book, CD, or DVD instead of paying for it, you are denying revenue to pay for the creation and distribution of the content. If everyone did that, most wouldn't bother with creating and distributing content, because they wouldn't be able to make a living at it.
Face it. Many Slashdotters are against copyright and patents just because they want to freeload. They don't give a thought to the consequences their actions have.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So if I go to my library and borrow a book for free, or a DVD or a CD I am stealing? Am I denying revenue to pay for creation and distribution of the content?
I and most people I know have been doing this for a long time with books and guess what - there are still books being written.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The people lose again (Score:5, Insightful)
Looks like it's categorically impossible to have a rational debate with you about copyright, because anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a pirate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Face it. Many Slashdotters are against copyright and patents just because they want to freeload. They don't give a thought to the consequences their actions have.
Probably true. But that doesn't change the fact that the business model used by those interested in stricter rules for copyright and patents is undeniably wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The federal government doesn't meddle in shoplifting either.
In truth, no cop wants to bother with this stuff. This is why Hollywood had to buy this sort of law. Cops would rather chase drug kingpins or bank robbers.
There's simply no glory in shutting down Canal Street.
What piracy is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Piracy is IDF paramilitary terrorists raiding aid convoys bringing food and medicine to Gaza. When are the denizens of the Whitehouse going to crack down on that?
Re:The people lose again (Score:4, Insightful)
You've obviously been here for a while, and seen this before, but I'll post anyway.
I don't disagree with you; I don't agree with you either. I'm a quasi-artist. my father is a musician (he helped invent rock-a-billy, sorry), and has recently had a company in Sweden republishing some of his old records without his permission. My daughter is a artist & photographer.
All of us agree that there needs to be a way to keep others from profiting from our work; the website that hosts something my family did, and didn't ask for permission to use it, should be subject to a civil penalty for doing so that should be tied to the amount of profit they made from it, with a cash penalty for the original unauthorized use, POSSIBLY based on the value of the art, where possible. But it's not criminal, no one was harmed except in their wallet.
We are vehemently against the criminalization that the government is starting; one of the things we've started doing is offering unlimited use licenses to any family stuff for anyone that is being targeted by a criminal trial, free of charge (it's not happened, and probably never will, but I still think it's a good idea).
The main issue, however, is fair use. Any copyrighted work should be free to use for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, scholarship, derivative works, or parody. it's long standing U.S. Law, and the current initiative, while they are presenting it as a means of dealing with counterfeit products and sites selling copies of copyrighted works, will have a strong chilling effect on fair use; law enforcement and purported copyright holders WILL attempt to use this to shut down sites hosting blogs, parodies, derivative works, etc.
In direct answer to your statement, this could mean more of the same content will be produced.. but it's going to have a stifling effect on new artists and those who create new types of art, and have a negative impact on media reviewers, fan sites & parody, to name a few targets.
Re:The people lose again (Score:5, Insightful)
For how long, perpetuity? You say that your father invented rock-a-billy. Wikipedia claims that this style of music was invented in the 50s. So we are looking now at 60 years ago. So something your father created and released 60 years ago should still be generating revenue for you and your family? What about when it gets to 100 years, 200? When does it get to become part of our shared cultural heritage, that anyone should be able to enjoy? Never? When you made "enough" money from it?
I get that you want to make money for work your father did 50 or 60 years ago, but if i build a computer or a house or a deck for someone, i don't then get collect royalties and expect them to support me 60 years later. Or in your example, ask permission to have a dinner party on the deck. You are basically denying people access to a part of the culture, because you want to make more money. I get it, and honestly, if i was in the same position Im not saying I wouldn't do the exact same thing. It does also complicate things that they are charging money for it. Ideally, no one should have to pay for any music. Sometimes for rare things that are simply not available anywhere, you end up paying someone who has access to the content. What I would do if I were you, is release the content in question on your own website as a digital download for a small fee to cover hosting and bandwidth (perhaps 5$ an album). You could very easily destroy any profit that this sweedish company is making overnight.
Thats a creative solution to your problem, which allows you to make some money and also allows people access to perhaps hard to find recordings. Music is about telling a story. No one has a right to determine who can and cannot listen to stories. The whole of humanities oral traditions are at stake with the locking up and denying of access to culture.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just to clarify, I don't deserve a dime from any work my dad created; I had nothing to do with it.
I honestly don't have any idea what is fair; on one hand I think the lifetime of the artist sounds good, with maybe the possibility of a one time only extension of...10 years? by the artists heirs.
On the other hand, I think that might be too long; how about 10 years from creation, with the artist able to renew it for another 10 years at a time during their lifetime, with heirs only getting a cut during the time
Any plans to crack down on the FED? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The Federal Reserve is a private corporation, not a government agency.
Re: (Score:2)
Those who run the greatest PONZI scheme (Score:2)
are not the ones we can count on to go after their own lackeys. Why should they accord us any respect when we are dumb enough to keep putting them back in power? There are far too many useful idiots at hand.
The White House is full of wimps (Score:3, Funny)
Fooled us (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, what did we really expect when the Copyright Czar position was created?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, what did we really expect when the Copyright Czar position was created?
I read somewhere (I can't remember where now) that when the US realizes that a problem is un-solvable, its final response is to appoint a Czar to take the blame for the problem remaining unsolved.
Works for me!
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fooled us (Score:5, Informative)
Protecting the industry that votes Democrat and squelching free speech that criticizes the party in power.
Protecting the copyright cartels is one of the few things both parties agree on. Don't forget that Sonny Bono, author/sponsor of the copyright for eternity-on-the-installment-plan, was a Republican. Both houses passed this stinking piece of legislative manure by voice vote, which makes it impossible to determine who voted for or against. Republicans controlled both the h
Take your partisan nitwittery elsewhere, where the audience isn't persuaded by facts. Freep, perhaps.
Good point. (Score:2)
Our major exports seem to be food and IP.
It's all going to hell... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is what happens when it all goes oversees (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is what happens when the US no longer has any manufacturing and produces very little real, tangible, goods or services. Between executives and shareholders wringing every last penny of quarterly profit at the expense of long-term goals, regulations and unions forcing unsustainable operating expenses, and skyrocketing education costs paired with plummeting education quality, long-term viability of the US business sector is caving.
The only thing the US has left that is of value on the global market is "intellectual property". This means regardless of whether you vote Republican or Democrat, you will get politicians that support crackdowns on piracy and extension of copyright protections.
Re: (Score:2)
This means regardless of whether you vote Republican or Democrat, you will get politicians that support crackdowns on piracy and extension of copyright protections.
Whether you vote Republican or Democrat you will get essentially the same politicians which differ on small, trivial issues that hide the underlying sameness of the parties.
Until we get a third party elected, we will have mostly the same which is parties bought by various corporations, parties ignoring the constitution, parties ignoring those who they've been elected by.
The way I see it, both major parties fail at listening to those who elected them and most importantly actually reading the consti
Re: (Score:2)
This is just wishful thinking. The following statements badly need citations:
The only noncontroversial statement y
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't wikipedia. Do a Google search on any of those phrases and you'll see that the evidence supports my position.
Not more manufacturing crap (Score:5, Insightful)
That is not just wrong, it is the opposite of right. Not only does the US still manufacture goods, it has the #1 output of manufactured goods in the entire world. Yes, that's right, more than China even. That is on track to change, the way things are going China will be #1 by around 2020, but because of their growth, but because the US isn't making things. The US is manufacturing more than it has at nearly any other time (the recession has caused a drop, but pre-recession was highest levels ever).
You are just choosing to see things selectively. If you don't know what it is that the US makes, well that is your failing, not a failing of the US economy. There are some mundane things, like steel girders or sewer lids. There are some high tech things like computer processors (most of Intel's fabs are in the US) and DSPs. There are some industrial things like locomotives and heavy construction machinery. There are some specialized things like MRI scanners and nuclear reactors. There are some unexpected things like Toyota cars (Toyota has many US factories).
Doesn't matter, all over the board the US produces a whole lot of stuff. So please, educate yourself before spouting off. This "The US makes nothing but imaginary goods!" thing is tired and incorrect.
CounterPiracy? (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's keep on expanding the "ease of use" for anonymous p2p networks.
p2p is the ENTIRE future of our progress as humanity.
Governments/Corporations (and Government, Inc.orporations) have no idea what will happen when nanoscale-printers arrive, USB Plug&Play Ready.
Think about pirating processors... monitors... wireless antenna designs... turbochargers... medicines... perfumes... textiles... Rolex watches... solar panels... more nano-printers.
The future belongs to us.
Let's work on the p2p networks.
=)
Re:CounterPiracy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Some people have already been thinking about the legal implications of 3D printers. You might be interested in the following paper:
"The Intellectual Property Implications of Low-Cost 3D Printing [ed.ac.uk]"
Resource Allocation (Score:2)
It's easy to see the allure of the Utopian view Star Trek gave each of us once with the introduction of replicators and the notion of "bulk matter" being converted into consumable goods. I certainly understand where you're coming from, and I agree to an extent.
There's just one problem: It will never work. No, really, it won't.
Think about it: Do you honestly think that thousands of companies across a multitude of industries are going to allow the average consumer to simply download a blueprint for something
Re: (Score:2)
Most? Yeah. But some? Like hell they don't.
So... (Score:2)
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's more likely that the US will try to use US laws on US ISPs to BLOCK foreign/non-US websites -- until those websites conform to US laws.
I don't think it's going to be much fun.
Product pricing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Or producers could just stop making crap... (Score:2)
The other thing is that analogy is more true when the _price_ of the hard good is $20 and the customer-assessed value is $5 for the hard good... how much less the value of the soft good thereafter?
I just bought, and throughly enjoyed "Alan Wake" for the Xbox 360. I would have paid virtually the same price for a non-disk (download a la Steam etc) version if it would have (a) been available, and (b) been warenteed to be available for a period similar to the existence of the DVD.
For a title I value, "no physic
Re: (Score:2)
Even for purchased goods this is the case.
It used to be that a single movie would set you back $90. Now, that same movie would more likely be in the $5 bargain bin at Walmart. If not there then perhaps it would be on the $7.50 rack. Even BluRays are starting to feel the impact of the Walmart effect.
This result shouldn't be surprising at all... (Score:5, Informative)
...considering who we have as a Vice President and who his friends are:
Biden to MPAA: you'll like Obama's pick for copyright czar
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/biden-to-mpaa-youll-like-obamas-copyright-pick.ars [arstechnica.com]
I don't care enough to read it for myself (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks for posting that (Score:2)
I didn't feel like reading the government's plan, partly out of laziness and partly due to not wanting to get even more pissed off about the current state of US Copyright law. I expected the worst from reading the /. summary, but Techdirt's writeup has appeased those fears -- at least for now.
Don't be too Optimistic (Score:5, Informative)
I'm of the mindset that the media industry at large is hurting not so much because of piracy but because of quality and the inability to adapt. Me? I used to by CDs whenever I'd hunt for music. Now, I just purchase it from Amazon if it's available; if not, I do without. (Before anyone whines about lossy codecs, I might remind you that this is simply an anecdote; I honestly can't tell the difference between FLAC and MP3 for the majority of what I own except in very rare circumstances. If you can tell the difference, by all means purchase something you can encode in the format you desire.) I don't watch a lot of movies anymore, and the most recent thing I watched was an old series I enjoyed that Hulu happened to have.
So, it's great that they have the average consumer in mind.
But, I feel Ars missed something of value in this statement by Espinel (a copyright Czar? seriously? we have an entire legal framework put in place to enforce copyright, and we now need a copyright Czar to watch over all of this?):
(Original emphasis is not mine.)
Read that quote. Got it?
Now, I want you to read it again--carefully this time. Specifically, minus the distracting bits:
Emphasis mine.
I don't know about you, but that sounds a lot like a subtle (or maybe not to subtle) hint to industry that it needs to start cracking down on illicit behavior. Specifically, I'm talking about deep packet inspection. More importantly, her words imply to me that even Google would need to filter its results for potentially illegal download links.
But wait, there's more!
Judging by the reaction of Public Knowledge, I suspect that all such "circumvention devices" are indeed software applications that might help pull content off otherwise DRM-protected discs. Really, this statement better reads as "We're going to let the RIAA and MPAA look at all of this stuff and tell us whether it violates the DMCA. If it does, then we'll punish the authors."
To me, though, the most comical bit was this:
Oh really? We have all these fanciful ideas and if any one of those evil pirates overseas is in an area where we can't enforce our IP laws, we're screwed!
So tell me, aside from the little blurb about online pharmacies (which I do think ought to be shut down, but that's another rant entirely mainly because I suspect they pay for a vast majority of spam delivery), what part of this sounds as if it's not simply a thinly veiled attempt at selling ISP-level packet filtering?
Sigh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sigh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Lucas Entertainment will be sending you a cease and desist notice momentarily....
(err, wait, make that Lucasfilm Limited... best not to get those mixed up)
Wellcome to the stupid!. (Score:2)
We laught wen corporations waste butloads of money on stupid DRM schemes that never work and are cracked in hours, so only punish the people that pay for the gods.
Imagine this again, but the money wasted is from your taxes, and the people that is punished is everyone that lives inside USA.
Fun!.
NOT!. People. Stop this, please. ACT NOW!.
Enforcement is a detail - we care about the Rules (Score:5, Interesting)
While I think it is unfortunate that they have legitimized the phrase "intellectual property", it's actually a bit of a relief to see them focusing on piracy and counterfeit goods. I never had any expectation that any major official entity subject to political forces would act to weaken copyright or other "intellectual property" rules, since most commercial content creators want the maximum possible revenue from their work (regardless of broader social consequences to society and creativity). The general mindset is that creativity is fueled by the profit motive, so the more profit the more progress we will see in the arts and sciences. And while this is demonstrably NOT universally true (see open source, as just one example of many) it IS true that vast revenues are generated by copyright laws supporting commercial endeavors and the resources contributed by people so benefiting are of much more use to political campaigns than those who are creating for motivations OTHER than money.
Given that reality, Creative Commons and Open Source style licensing are probably the only practical means of preserving any of the benefits of what used to be the public domain going forward. With the courts suggesting that Congress can yank things OUT of the public domain even after they are placed there, it becomes clear that the best way forward is the "opt-in" community approach. This means, of course, that the body of work available for creative purposes outside of a commercial framework will be drastically reduced. However, the current social and legislative trends suggest that it's all we can hope for. Given that reality, those who prefer this environment can work to improve the tools and content so released in order to build up our own "subculture" over time. If it appeals to enough people, it may eventually function more or less independently of the commercial world without needing commercial content to fall into the public domain (indeed, in some sense this has been the practical situation for virtually the entire lifespan of everyone on this site anyway - how many of us remember any work released commercially in our lifetime that is now public domain?)
However, even this proposed subculture can exist only if it is not thwarted by legislative efforts. So long as works CAN be used without commercial payment, free and open source culture can survive as long as there are people willing to make it survive. My greatest concern is that Big Content will try to push for laws making ANY content available without charge subject to "unfair competition" rules - i.e. make it impossible for anyone to do ANYTHING with ANY content, regardless of license, without some form of concrete financial or goods based payment changing hands between creator and user. This might be phrased as the "Fair Compensation Act" intended to "ensure that content creators are compensated for their efforts" and "able to make a living". Free ANYTHING may be branded as "socialist", "communist", "anti-business" and "un-American". I have heard this feeling expressed - that nothing should be free; every product of any kind should be bought and sold in the open market to ensure fair compensation from users to creators. The existence of ANY free content is unfair competition and a dis-incentive to today's creative minds. Open source software prompts this opinion occasionally - for example, the "market destroying effects" of things like free compilers has ruined the livelihoods of people who might have made commercial tools. If that attitude ever makes it into the letter of the law, we are in Big Trouble - THAT is what we really need to watch for.
We need a rebellion (Score:4, Insightful)
So THAT's what they meant by "hope and change" (Score:2)
Ok, prepare for some really draconic cracking-down, which will inevitably include some false positives that will ruin some people's lives, and as hollywood continues to lose money, (because their business plan is no longer valid) things will become more and more draconian, until the only revenue stream that's keeping the traditional studios alive will be from litigation or government relief. I can hardly wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Hollywood's profits have actually been increasing year after year. They hit $10 billion in profits (or was that revenue?) in 2009 and I doubt that trend is going to slow down this year, what with Avatar and such hit movies. Oh, and 3D.
Just sayin'.
Am I missing something? (Score:5, Informative)
According to Ars, reaction to the report has been positive, even from Public Knowledge. You know, one a-them digital hippy organizations that campaign for peoples' rights. There won't be any gov't-sanctioned three-strikes or Internet filtering, and they're going to get the Department of Commerce to put together an ultimate report on financial harm from piracy (good luck with that, but A for effort since they mentioned that the media industries are basically making shit up). It really doesn't sound all that bad, and it could have been much worse.
And then we have this Slashdot summary, making it out to be all doom and gloom, as though the feds weren't even going to try to hide that they're in bed with Big Content. As the subject line says, am I missing something here?
Your tax dollars at work! (Score:2)
Enforcement isn't all bad... "sheesh"... (Score:3, Insightful)
Take this story in the context of the Slashdot story earlier today. There are an increasing number of web sites operating outside of the US that are illegally selling products that they don't own. If there is one thing that we should ALL be able to agree upon is that organized crime for profit is not defensible.
The companies selling downloads of movies/etc are directly stealing money from US companies as well as the artistic community that creates them. Say what you will about the MPAA/etc, but at least they are contributing something (i.e. they are actually creating and distributing the movies). Companies that just steal their content and resell it to people are just plain stealing.
Going after organized villainy is a GOOD use of taxpayer resources. We should be supporting these sorts of efforts and contrasting them with the the music industry's war on consumers.
BP and piracy, more related then one might think (Score:3, Insightful)
And so, I'm sorry but until I see a difference of attitude in private enterprise, until they stand up to the qualities that they profess law or not, I will continue to applaud those 'pirates' who use their resourcefulness to provide a product in a better way and profit from it. For they will never hurt me as much as BP has. They will never kill as many livelihoods as BP has. Add to that the whole wall-street fiasco.
I'm tired of hearing about the law, because corporate law has become a washed out, bought out joke that only helps profits of the powerful.
Not surprised. (Score:3, Interesting)
It is more and more apparent, that President Obama and his Administration, with his "Hope and Change" machinations are really "More of the Same, and Much Much Worse!" (TM)
With a little bit more of an expanded view, however, it is really Democrats and Republicans that are "More of the Same, and Much Much Worse!"
Both of the two major parties need a severe wake-up call, namely, less and less of them should be voted into office to the point where it starts messing with their power base, campaign financing and the like. That's really the only thing that will get their attention and start governing "...for the people..." and not "... for the multi-national corporations that give me nice fat campaign donation checks".
Re: (Score:2)
Most importantly, pirated Windows will be eradicated and those unable to buy the full version will be forced into Free software.
What are you talking about? How many people really "buy" Windows as a stand alone product? My guess is a few people who build their own systems and don't want to rely on cracks and Mac users. For the other 99.99% of Americans, they get Windows bundled with their computer. The thing about computers is that the price is really important, if you pay less than $300 or so for a computer, people are going to think it is crap, even if the savings is by not having OEM Windows installed and having Linux installed.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, the more expensive, difficult to use, and legally constricted something becomes, the more appealing the alternatives. And in this case, there are alternatives that will only become better as they become more popular and mainstream. If they happen to become as good (convenient, reliable, features), that is the day copyright loses control of that market.
Considering how intent our political leaders on all sides are on pursuing maximum IP controls, it seems likely that this is how it will play out, wit
Re: (Score:2)
ha!
Re:Dear, Victoria Espinel (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if it were feasible to have some sort of economic impact on the media industry, no matter what you do it'll never have any impact. Remember the "Drudge Tax" [washingtontimes.com] that the FTC was mulling over (now bear in mind, this was only a report and not something that is going into effect)? "Oh, but that's just Drudge" you say. "He's a right-wing lunatic."
Think about this carefully: the "Drudge Tax" was an idea concocted to make news aggregators (hi, Slashdot!) pay a small tax for linking to third party stories. Essentially, it would be in place to prop up an industry that is effectively in the process of dying. It sounds a lot like something Rupert Murdoch was proposing, too, doesn't it?
Remember, too, that every blank CD-ROM you purchase includes a small fee [torrentfreak.com] that goes straight into the coffers of the RIAA to help offset the costs of piracy. Sure, it's only a few cents, but during the peak of CD-ROM sales it was a figure undoubtedly rather high. Worst of all: most people have no idea they are paying what is effectively a tax.
So, no, I don't think that economically hurting the media industry is going to have any effect. Congress will simply levy taxes against the rest of us to keep their buddies afloat. If we truly professed to be a semi-capitalistic society, we would simply let these companies fail when they can no longer afford to keep their doors open. We're not; instead, we sink countless millions of dollars into failing industries simply because they have lobbyists.
You and I? Well, we're just taxpayers. We have no lobbyists. Plus, even if you could convince the vast majority of consumers to not purchase popular media (hint: won't happen), it'll never work. It'll instead be blamed on piracy, and you might just wind up paying a tax on every hardware component you purchase to build a computer, because--by golly--that device might just be used to pirate goods. In fact, I think there was a proposal of the sorts in the works.
I hate to sound so cynical. Instead, I'll end this on a positive note by welcoming you to serfdom.