DOJ Ramping Up Crackdown On Copyright-Infringing Sites 366
An anonymous reader writes "The Obama administration is just getting started in its mission to shut down rogue websites that illegally share copyrighted content such as movies and music. The White House's intellectual property czar, Victoria Espinel, said Monday that the Internet community should 'expect more of that' pre-emptive action as the administration ramps up its efforts to combat online copyright infringement — especially the illegal copying and sale of pharmaceutical drugs."
Next up (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Next up (Score:4, Interesting)
How long before they start to censor sites with political views not approved by the government, or blocking sites deemed 'risks to national security'. I really get tired of my country trying to police and control everything. What ever happened to wanting more freedom.
That's quite a leap you're making. I'f you're really upset then why not write a letter to your congressman and/or donate to the EFF?
Re:Next up (Score:5, Insightful)
I'f you're really upset then why not write a letter to your congressman ...
I find rubbing my lucky rabbit foot to be much more effective - and pleasant.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
quite a leap? hardly so imo. This thought i think is verified in the internet kill switch debate. A button(essentially) to disable any website deemed harmful or infringing, if u think use of that will stop at copyright u are ignorant of politics and american history. Case and point= Wikileaks(i know we are all sick of hearing the name) they keep getting taken down based on a political reasons, not legal ones.
U dont lose rights, they are eroded away.
Re: (Score:2)
A button(essentially) to disable any website deemed harmful or infringing
And to think, China was content to just block their own subje^Wcitizens from seeing it but, by gum, WE gotta wipe em off the face of the internet...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think its as far a leap as you might make it sound. If "Pre-Emptive" action gets too comfortable with internet laws, its not a far step to getting around regular warrant procedures.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Next up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Next up (Score:4, Interesting)
Give them a few years and we'll not be able to object to anything.
Re: (Score:3)
How you solve that is you don't vote for Joe Lieberman. Vote for someone who won't do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, vote for Mickey Mouse - he doesn't have an agenda!
Re:Next up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How you solve that is don't let people like bin Laden think that blowing up buildings will work.
Re: (Score:3)
That's hard to do when it works so well!
He orchestrated a single attack and got our own government to spend the next 9 years and counting trashing our country for him.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we trashed his country, and a couple of its neighbors, quite a bit more.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we trashed his country, and a couple of its neighbors, quite a bit more.
And he's fine with that sacrifice. As long as it takes us down, that's really all that matters.
Re:Next up (Score:4, Insightful)
He's from Saudi Arabia.
He moved to Afghanistan, but that was already trashed by the Soviets and then again by the Taliban.
Given his beliefs, he probably would have gotten around to attacking Iraq eventually, but we saved him the trouble.
As for MORE, that's a matter of perspective. Neither his birth country, any country he lives in, nor their neighbors have given up the fundamental ideas behind their foundation. We keep chiseling away at our own foundation.
Re:Next up (Score:4, Informative)
They ALL voted for the (un)Patriot act - liberals, conservatives, libertarians, male and female...
Uh, not all [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Russ Feingold too.
Re: (Score:3)
In the 107th Congress, there were:
*Senate:
- Dean Barkley (I - MN) [Independence Party of Minnesota]
*House of Representatives:
- Bernie Sanders (I - VT) [democratic socialist, only one actually]
-Jim Jeffords (I - VT) [Former Republican]
Re: (Score:3)
Republicans: 98.6% Yeas
Democrats: 70.0% Yeas
For the 2006 Renewal:
Republicans: 94.3% Yeas
Democrats: 34.7% Yeas
The Patriot Act was passed unquestioningly TWICE by the GOP. Once with some questions by the Dems and rejected once by the Dems. And if you broke this into the liberals vs conservatives, the libs would have never passed it.
Lets try to be factual about this. It really is sad that just a few days ago I had to prove to someone that the democrats voted against entering
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, someone certainly is, but they'll never get elected because the "voting for a third party candidate is throwing away your vote" meme is so firmly entrenched, and neither R nor D will ever run anyone who doesn't have that position.
Re:Next up (Score:4, Informative)
It's not a meme. It's a design feature of the system. This would not be true if the winning candidate was required to get a majority of the votes, but as only a plurality of the votes is required, voting for a third party is, essentially, saying "Neither of the two leading contenders is enough better than the other that I care to choose between them." And as only a plurality is required, one of them will win. Possibly with only 20% of the vote, but all that's required is that their closest opponent not get more than 19.99999% for that to suffice.
Personally I favor Condorcet voting, but Instant Runoff is nearly as good and much easier to explain.
Re: (Score:3)
Personally I favor Condorcet voting, but Instant Runoff is nearly as good and much easier to explain.
I agree, and if you want to move in that direction, the best approach may be to try to get it implemented on a local level, in your city or town. Oakland and San Francisco have both switched to instant runoff for local elections, over the screams of the established/entrenched powers-that-be, and it seems to be working quite well. IMO, the more places that do the same, the more likely it is to be implemented on larger scales (especially--for now--in California).
One common complaint of the P-T-B seems to be
Re: (Score:3)
And what if no-one is running who won't do that?
Busy this election cycle, are we?
No, seriously. Local elections and primaries are where those with ideas outside the two-party box can get a start. If it means that much to you, run for an elected position yourself in your town/county/district if there is nobody to represent your views.
The system was designed to require user input & active participation to function as intended. The situations and conditions in the US today are directly the result of an increasing lack of both over the last ~60 years or
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you think that shutting down theives is the same thing as shutting down newspapers?
Seriously, the depth of cluelessness that surrounds this issue is abyssal.
The government protects MPAA and RIAA members against torrent sites. Given.
But if you were ever so industrious as to write something that was worth something, the government would protect you from the MPAA, the RIAA, and itself.
Re:Next up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
i always have problems when people try to put a # on how long it should last.. 30 years? why not 29? or 31?
i personally thing it should be for the life of the artist.. the actual person who created it.. not the company .. but the person to whom it came from.
sure this brings other questions when dealing with companies and other crap.. but i feel that if i made something i should have the say in how that is used.. but once i'm dead.. there isn't shit i can do about it.
and while i will agree that you sho
Re:Next up (Score:4, Insightful)
Ya this is my problem (Score:5, Interesting)
I support copyright. You need to be able to make money from creative works if we want people who work on that kind of thing full time. So there has to be some kind of protection, exclusivity, otherwise you can't make money in a capitalist society. Now if you want to replace capitalism with something else, that's another issue so let's not discuss that here. However in the framework we have, we need something like copyright.
Fine, however we need to recognize that it IS an artificial construct, and the only reason we have it is to, as the Constitution says "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Well to best do that it needs to be a reasonably limited period. That ensures a few things:
1) You can't just make money forever by doing one thing. If you wish to continue to make money, you'll have to continue to make new works.
2) It ensures works get distributed, not locked away. When they are under copyright you want to distribute it so you can make money for the short period permitted, and after that anyone can distribute it.
3) It allows for others to build on existing works. Creativity does not exist in a vacuum, we build on idea from the past. When idea enter the public domain it allows them to be used as the foundations of new ones.
So I agree, we need a shorter copyright term. Personally I'd do it something like thus:
Upon the creation of a work you get an automatic 10 year copyright, no work required. This means that even if you create something you don't think has value, but realize later it does you aren't screwed. During this time you have unlimited control and rights over the work. You do as you please with it. At the end of 10 years you have three choices:
1) Do nothing, the work then falls in to the public domain.
2) Register for an exclusive extension. You then receive another 10 years of exclusive, unlimited control. After that the work will be public domain.
3) Register for a non-exclusive extension. You then receive another 30 years of rights, however you are required to license derivative works for a standardized fee to all that want it. You can profit from your work, and from the derivatives, but you MUST license it for derivatives and the fee you get is fixed.
My objection now is this forever copyright thing we've got going.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you didn't read the contract you signed when they bought your copyright from you, that's too bad for you, and a good example of where the government should keep its nose out of private individuals' business.
But if you can prove the RIAA or MPAA stole your stuff, you win:
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/07/business/fi-34293 [latimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If you didn't read the contract you signed when they bought your copyright from you, that's too bad for you
So I read the contracts from all the major publishers; they were near identical. Now how do I get a work published and promoted?
Re: (Score:2)
Start your own company and promise not to do the things they do.
They'll never sign another artist and you'll end up with a monopoly you can defend.
Re: (Score:3)
Start your own company
Unfortunately they've stacked the system to raise some huge barriers to entry. They control the distribution channels, they control the all-important advertising and promotion channels. If you could break their hold on that, then we might be getting somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Next up (Score:5, Insightful)
How long before they start to censor sites with political views not approved by the government, or blocking sites deemed 'risks to national security'
That's the kind of thinking that leads to statements like "If we let gay people get married, what's next - marrying your dog?" Please stop the Bush/Obama=Hilter madness. If you're going to make the case for hypothetical future govt abuses, at least come up with something remotely based on reality.
Similarly, selling bootleg DVDs on the street is illegal and those who do so are shut down and arrested/fined. This has not in any way led to the shutdown of legit video stores that sell "objectionable" content. To make that link is to create a classic straw-man.
tired of my country trying to police and control everything
By any measurable standard, the average American citizen has more freedom of movement and behavior than anyone in human history. And the trend continues. Gay/inter-racial marriage, hardcore porn, sodomy, public nudity, medical marijuana, etc, etc, etc. There has been an explosion of new rights and freedoms in the 20th century. What freedoms do you feel you have lost?
If you're concerned about your right to steal music/movies/books/etc by getting them from torrent sites, then you are claiming that your "right" to steal trumps the creator's (intellectual) property rights. Not exactly what you had in mind I don't think, but that's what you're complaining about in the current context.
Re:Next up (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
the average American citizen has more freedom of movement and behavior than anyone in human history. And the trend continues. Gay/inter-racial marriage, hardcore porn, sodomy, public nudity, medical marijuana, etc, etc, etc
What parts of the country allow such things and what is the cheapest ticket to... oh, you meant separately, didn't you?
Re: (Score:2)
Christ what next declaring another stupid war, like 'the war on drugs'. How long before they start to censor sites with political views not approved by the government, or blocking sites deemed 'risks to national security'. I really get tired of my country trying to police and control everything. What ever happened to wanting more freedom.
Well since they're cracking down on pharmaceutical IP rights, perhaps they can call this "The war on the poor and sick or infirm".
Re: (Score:2)
Once someone puts up a political view on one of these websites it puts the government in a position of censoring that.
Re:Next up (Score:5, Informative)
Nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do you know why it costs more locally? Just like chip makers have runs of "the good stuff" and the items that won't work at the original intended speed that they then mark as a lower speed and sell for less, drug makes have batches that meet local regulations and ones that don't. If a batch doesn't meet US federal regulations it is sent to some country where it DOES meet the regulations. This may be fine for you if, for example, your needs only require your pill be within 30% tolerance of the labeled amount. But if you required 95% tolerance - you would have to pay more for it. Some countries have higher purity / tolerance standards than the US. Buy brand name drugs from there: you'll find they are more expensive than in the US. It is all about how much it costs to make and which batches meet the requirements of which place.
Incorrect. The US has higher drug costs because we have trade agreements with most other countries that states we will foot the entire cost of research and development for any drug made by US companies, even if the research happens overseas. Thats why you can get some drugs in Canada for 5% of the total cost of the same drug in the US. It has nothing to do with the purity, and entirely due to those trade agreements.
If people really cared about the cost of medicine in the US that would be one of the first th
Cognitive Dissonance (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of this research is funded or subsidized by your tax dollars already. So, why exactly should these companies be making huge profits off of marginal investments in government work?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ahh the reason that my little pills that make me able to move every day cost more than my fucking house payment..
i agree what the "right amount" to charge is a tricky question... but i think we call all agree it's a lot less than what they are charging now.
and no i'm not joking when i say that - my monthly medication costs more than my house payment - and without it i wouldn't be able to function.
Re: (Score:2)
"copied drugs" may not necessarily contain what they are advertised to. They may pose a health risk, or may not have as much active ingredient as they claim to.
Plus I don't think most of the people getting them have had the legitimate alternatives prescribed to them by a doctor.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they should focus on busting fraudulent suppliers.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So, lemme get this straight. You're against copying music, because you create music. But you're for copying drugs, because you use drugs?
Just think of it this way. If more people do drugs, then there would be more people creating music. More competition means fewer people buying your music. And that means you would have less money for lava lamps.
So, as you can see, it's clearly in your interest to be against free drugs.
Re:Cognitive Dissonance (Score:5, Insightful)
So that now the 'value' of a copy is going to be for practical purposes, zero.
The music industry is fighting this, but simply can't win that war. Eventually new artists will skip the established labels and go straight online and the labels and 'old' companies will wither.
As an artist, use the power of the internet to drive sales of the intangible things you create. Like playing a live concert, or an actual painting. That is the way of the future.
And to be sure there will be some 'need' for a good marketing company to promote bands, but it will be less of the master/slave relationship that the labels currently have and more of the customer/client relationship that exists in normal non-monopoly situations.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that for most people once you have the zero-cost digital copy you have no need for the artist or his orginal physical copy. I claim that once I have seen Avatar a couple of times I have no need to possess it. Similarly, I don't need to possess the Mona Lisa having seen it.
I don't really need to go to the concert if I have listened to the music. And I won't ever go, period. You can say that sufficient people will go to support the artist, but I seriously doubt that. In the last 50 years t
Re: (Score:3)
To some extent sharing is also good, it helps get word of your art around. However you would hope that once someone has heard a song or two from you
Re: (Score:2)
Could your indecision stems from wanting at least a little control of your work for at least a little while? Not absolute control for eternity?
Well, that was what copyright was supposed to be: control for a limited time. Your gut instinct jives with what it was supposed to be. You get first crack at trying to commercialize your effort (or give it away), then after a few years anyone who could figure out how to use it was free to make a go of it.
Same for someone who dumps money into writing a book, coming
Re: (Score:2)
I think it has more to do with people getting scheduled drugs, that they shouldn't more than it has to do with CD copying. Just a guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your book is very thin and disjoint. Nobody would steal it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you should call yourself an artist if your first goal isn't to get your music to as many people as possible.
Then you sign with a major label; they're the only ones who can do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There can NEVER be a free market in healthcare. A free market can only function when both buyer and seller are reasonably free to walk away from the bargaining table.
When you're unconscious and being transported to the hospital, that condition is not met. When you wake up and your choices are take bigbucks drug and procedure or die, the condition is not met.
It could come closer to working (at least in the short term) if patents on drugs were abolished so you could at least bargain with someone more reasonab
Re: (Score:2)
I think there may be some gaps in your cause-effect chain. Perhaps some chalkboard circles would clear things up, yes?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you are Justin Blieber, no one is going know about your music unless you publicize it some way
Interesting, considering Bieber is only known because of the massive publicity blitz that's pushing him. He doesn't have a huge amount of talent (or at least, little that is currently displayed) and no one listens to him for the music; he's being targeted at the very valuable and profitable "teen heart-throb" demographic.
As an indie artist, I can't see how putting your stuff out there for free doesn't at le
Re: (Score:2)
The new face of the US Government (Score:3, Interesting)
"DoJ's announcement immediately won the praise of the entertainment industry and renewed interest on Capitol Hill for legislation that would grant the administration additional power to shutter malicious and rogue websites."
The entertainment industry. Yup, of the people, by the people, and for the people. More like the oligarchy.
Re: (Score:3)
And what really chaffs most about this is they pressured the US government to pressure other countries to adopt copyright legislation treaties more stringent than what the DMCA was, and then use that to basically cause the US to now have to adopt those as well.
It's like they managed to negotiate on behalf of the oligopolies and then make everyone beholden to them. I've said before, the "entertainment/
Re: (Score:2)
Of the people, by the people and for the people (who own majority share in the worlds largest and wealthiest corporations).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sing us a song. If it's any good, the entertainment industry will include you.
Meet ... (Score:2)
New Boss = Old Boss
If they keep this up.. (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the first crack in the US's losing control of the internet. Not that the US or any one entity "controls" it per se, but we did have a big influence in the technical direction of it.
Re: (Score:3)
the spread of information (Score:2)
I wonder if this has anything to do with a certain poison-pill that has been circulating on the torrent sites.
How long before the US becomes world enemy #1? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wikileaks have shown in very clear detail how the U.S., often at the request of U.S. business (and isn't this exactly how imperialism works?), meddles in the affairs of other nations... sometimes with guns and explosives. The U.S. seems to be expanding or otherwise pushing its weight around a lot lately where pushing its agenda around. Now it is using its ICANN control to mess with DNS and it won't be long before IP routing is also a tool in its belt as well.
All of this is going to (and already is) make people very angry with the U.S. and eventually stop doing business with U.S. companies out of principle. That will pretty much spell the end of the U.S. as we know it.
The U.S. exists in a world among MANY nations. Once we turn the majority of them against us, we're in trouble... I think we already are.
It's time for the U.S. to behave. The next round of Wikileaks will turn up the truth further by exposing the REAL causes of the problems -- world banks.
Big Media ... now Big Pharma (Score:2)
Which "high campaign donation" industry will the US gubmint protect next?
Abuse of the law (Score:2)
Far as I am concerned the U.S is abusing it's own law for the gain of the rich distribution companies. As this is not about the copyright infringement as they so often claim.
The life time of a tv shows is short, less then five years for the poorer ones and up to few decades of years for the better ones. If you want to see what I mean, just check the re-runs at your tv station.
Life time of movie is sometimes even shorter then of a tv show.
In both cases there is also the rule that good stuff is going to going
What does "shut down" mean here? (Score:2)
Out of curiosity, what do they mean by "shutting down" websites? Remove domain names from DNS servers or really shutting down the physical servers? As far as I can see so far they have primarily fooled around with the international DNS system. If it's just that, who cares.
While we're all on the "freedom" crusade here... (Score:2)
While comments seem to be transfixed on the "hip" rejection of authority, did anyone actually stop to consider the nature of the infringement?
We're talking about people sharing content not for academic purposes, criticism or comment, but simply because some individuals believe that their convenience outweighs another party's right to control the distribution, exhibition or other presentation of their work, as well as the right to decide who to grant license to do the same.
I use other copyrighted works all t
"illegal copying and sale of pharmacuetical drugs" (Score:2)
Copying drugs? (Score:2)
Wow, I didn't know I could torrent viagra from the pirate bay!
Gives whole new meaning to the term "Seeder"
Pharmaceutical drugs? really? (Score:3)
never mind the debate about whether it's right to aggressively 'protect' the rights of pharma companies, did anyone actually see any pharmaceutical sites at all in the initial list of seized domains? I only remember file sharing sites and counterfeit fashion stuff.
Sounds like the classic PR tactic to me: cite the most horrible possible thing your new law could be used to prevent, when it's actually going to be used for something entirely different. 'We need these CCTV cameras to protect us from child-molesting terrorists! (oh, but we're also going to use them to have you sent to Guantanamo Bay for parking illegally. But don't think about that too hard.)'
Re: (Score:2)
It's action without due process. No trial, no charges, just seizure. That's illegal.
Re:viva le WIKILEAKS (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I downloaded the movie that came from... And don't call me dude.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:viva le WIKILEAKS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:viva le WIKILEAKS (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are you even making a "conservatism is bad" argument here? It's the left that has been the side more firmly in favor of vigorous copyright controls and enforcement, and it's the more leftist administration that is making this more of a priority. Liberal vs Conservative is not necessarily drawn in "non-moneyed interests versus moneyed interest" lines, nor does it mean that the left is not cozy to some big business interests. They are very interested in vigorous government pre-emptive intervention on the part of the media conglomerates.
Re:viva le WIKILEAKS (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the left that has been the side more firmly in favor of vigorous copyright controls and enforcement, and it's the more leftist administration that is making this more of a priority.
Which left? Where? Oh, you mean the Democratic party. Yeah, those guys who kept ripping on the "professional left" for being "too far to the left" all this past election cycle. Man, those guys are real leftists, I tell ya.
Re:viva le WIKILEAKS (Score:4, Informative)
While the Obama administration may be "liberal" when it comes to social service programs (and he's a centrist by global standards), that is really the extent of it. He is FAR to the right of most world leaders on "law and order", war, business regulations, government structures, etc.
The fact that the republicans are even further right doesn't decry "liberalism" but rather just points out the fact that our "democrats" are further right of most countries "conservatives" on most topics, and far from being "communists" (which is just inane, when that is trotted out).
The "liberal" viewpoint is to support communal goods and individual liberty over corporate good and profit EVERY TIME. This is a conservative ideology, even if our democrat centrist (again, by global standards) government is in favor of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if the Diplomats that wrote the cables that Wikileaks published claim copy rights over them, then the DoJ could shut down Wikileaks, and any other whistle blower site, based on copy right violations.
The pharma and entertainment industries get a boon, and send more cash in to campaign funds, which is critical to our elected multi-millionaire representatives who are going to easily crack $10 billion in spending for the 2012 election. And the feds give themselves more power. The only people who lose out
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't it ironic that for all of the screaming about Republicans ignoring rules and laws and that its the Democrats that are the worst offenders?
Its not ironic. Its not even true.
All you've observed is that the rules get broken by the group in power, while group without power doesn't. Big revelation. Had McCain/Palin been handed power, they would have been the ones breaking the rules.
The only question is which group will be worse. Personally, given the options, I think we got the right one. (And all you 3rd
Re:I hate to sound like Sarah Palin (Score:4, Informative)
The only problem with that assertion is that between insurance and out of pocket expenses the US is already paying more per capita in health care than all those socialist countries for services that for the average consumer are worse.