×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DOJ Opposes Extending DOJ Copyright Authority

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the not-our-problem dept.

Government 141

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The White House has opposed the bipartisan bill that would create copyright cops on the grounds that it would cause the Department of Justice to end up 'serving as pro bono lawyers for private copyright holders.' And while they do occasionally prosecute criminal copyright infringement, they have no intention of dabbling with civil cases because, 'taxpayer-supported department lawyers would pursue lawsuits for copyright holders, with monetary recovery going to industry.' At this rate, the discovery of winged suiformes would appear to be imminent."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

141 comments

Yey! Victory! (5, Funny)

Big Nothing (229456) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149355)

A victory caused by laziness is still a victory, right?

Re:Yey! Victory! (5, Funny)

Shin-LaC (1333529) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149373)

It is the best kind of victory.

Re:Yey! Victory! (4, Insightful)

thedonger (1317951) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149779)

It's called "wu wei," action through inaction. If you prefer, knowing when inaction is the best action.

Maybe our government is going Taoist?

Re:Yey! Victory! (3, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25150773)

It's called "wu wei," action through inaction. If you prefer, knowing when inaction is the best action.

Maybe our government is going Taoist?

Actively opposing a bill is not inaction.

The other reason Bush's Administration is opposing this bill was left out of TFA
http://www.itworld.com/government/55331/us-doj-copyright-protection-bill-flawed [itworld.com]

The legislation would also require the U.S. president to create an intellectual property enforcement office in the White House, and it would expand some civil and criminal penalties for copyright infringement. The requirement to create a new office in the White House would be a "legislative intrusion into the internal structure and composition of the president's administration," the letter said.

Bush & Cheney would never allow a precedent like that to be set.
It would be an enormous step back for their Unitary Executive Theory [TM].

If you think Bush's Administration is going to "wu wei" themselves through this, you've got it all wrong.

Re:Yey! Victory! (2, Interesting)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 5 years ago | (#25151157)

Given that every other alphabet agency, all technically part of the executive branch, "causes" this effect it's pretty much a bullshit line. *sniff* *Wipes away tear* I never thought I'd see the day when Bush refused more power.

Re:Yey! Victory! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25151767)

You people never cease to amaze me, the Bush administration defends your rights and you blast them with rhetorical bullshit.

Ease up for once with your nonsense and read their reasoning... it outlines constitutional reasoning.

Re:Yey! Victory! (3, Insightful)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152111)

You people never cease to amaze me, the Bush administration defends your rights and you blast them with rhetorical bullshit.

You people?!?!? What do you mean by that?!? Just kidding.

Of course the rhetoric is important even if the outcome was good. It's good that Saddam is not ruling anything anymore, but the rhetoric was clearly bullshit and set up a bad precedent. (There were other mistakes too, notably what we did after invading, but let's keep focused here.)

Bush and Cheney have done everything to increase the power of the president short of claiming infallibility. If the administration had been opposing this because it's idiotic and would be spending taxpayer money to sue college kids for sharing songs with their friends, hey way to suddenly grow a brain bush! But it's not, they're saying "No, because you can't tell the president what to do."

It's important because if the RIAA comes back with "okay fine, same proposal, just without the requirement to make a new office," Bush is going to say "Okay, great!" So he's still a worthless sack o' crap.

Re:Yey! Victory! (4, Insightful)

Rakarra (112805) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152711)

You people?!?!? What do you mean by that?!? Just kidding.

He means "you people," who refuse to give Bush an inch even when he makes the right decision for the right reasons. I suppose you could call them the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the left.

But it's not, they're saying "No, because you can't tell the president what to do."

And he's right, and they shouldn't be able to. It's the whole point behind the separation of powers in the US Constitution. Am I still angry at Bush for his earlier power grabs? Yes I am, and even right-wingers should be too. But this decision is a response to the unjustified meddling of Congress in the affairs of the executive branch, and that's just as important a consideration as "this requirement is a waste of time." You don't fix earlier bad precidents by setting more.

Re:Yey! Victory! (1)

magus_melchior (262681) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152611)

And even if Congress insisted by overriding a Presidential veto on this, Cheney will simply starve the office the way Nixon starved many of Johnson's now-defunct offices: Assign cronies to them.

Re:Yey! Victory! (5, Interesting)

tinkertim (918832) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149531)

A victory caused by laziness is still a victory, right?

Its one thing to permit far fetched litigation. Its another thing to supply all lawyers needed for free.

I think the RIAA realized .. if we're going to enforce copyright ... enlisting public defenders is probably __not__ going to help. So they quit pushing.

This is as reassuring as it is funny.

Re:Yey! Victory! (3, Funny)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149669)

WTF? The White House doing something that isn't brain-dead stupid? Someone please pinch me. No, wait, don't I like this dream!

Re:Yey! Victory! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25150053)

The White House isn't brain-dead stupid. It just has different interests than the common citizen. That's why a lot of the things it does seem off.

Re:Yey! Victory! (5, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#25150397)

WTF? The White House doing something that isn't brain-dead stupid? Someone please pinch me. No, wait, don't I like this dream!

I'll get flamed hard core for saying this but GWB actually seems to be getting more reasonable as his term winds down. He actually seems to realize the limitations of his office and of American power now. Makes me wonder where we would be if this man had been the one in the White House seven years ago. I guess being POTUS for seven years is a humbling experience.

True on both sides of the aisle (5, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#25150789)

I'll get flamed hard core for saying this but GWB actually seems to be getting more reasonable as his term winds down

The real deal is that you need to have the political party opposite of the President to be the one that holds Congress. Clinton of 1992 and 1993 was just terrible but once he lost the Congress and had to bend to the other side, partisanship went up, but the country was run far more effectively. Similarly, Bush being checked by the Democrats is actually more moderate because he has to be. When you have the other side of the aisle to contend with on a daily basis, you have to learn consensus to survive.

Re:True on both sides of the aisle (1)

theM_xl (760570) | more than 5 years ago | (#25151925)

Yes. Being checked because you can't just do something without at least talking to the other side helps a lot. You know, all the US really needs is a third party the same size of the Dems and Reps and there'll always be at least two parties involved. I hear the Netherlands have a funds for helping developing countries set up a multiparty system...

Re:Yey! Victory! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25151169)

I'll get flamed hard core for saying this but GWB actually seems to be getting more reasonable as his term winds down.

Are you suggesting he could have somehow become more unreasonable? His entry point was to ignore intelligence about a massive terrorist attack and then use it as a pretext to attack a completely unrelated country to defend his fathers honor... Where do you go from there?

P.S. I didn't dislike Bush senior.

Re:Yey! Victory! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25151361)

Why does everyone keep using the word "POTUS"?
Don't you people realize that in *MY* mind, for some bizarre reason, it always comes out as "SCROTUM"?

Re:Yey! Victory! (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 5 years ago | (#25151573)

Since it appears we aren't flaming right now. I don't think GWB is getting more reasonable as his term winds down, I think he has always had his moments of sound and reasonable thinking. Namely, his tax cuts/economic stimulus plans during times of recession and the concept of free trade are straight out of economics textbooks. He runs into trouble with his deficit spending during times of economic expansion.

Re:Yey! Victory! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25150629)

...Actually, I'm a pretty sound sleeper, somebody shoot me in the face. Is he really not here? Dammit... The one man who could have helped...

(With apologies to Steven Colbert)

not brain-dead, brain-different (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 5 years ago | (#25151741)

The White House doing something that isn't brain-dead stupid?

The reptilian brain of a bureaucracy does not work in quite the same way as a human's brain. Lack of movement does not mean the reptile is dead or ignoring events around it.

Re:Yey! Victory! (2, Interesting)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149933)

Not laziness so much as self interest.

The basic problem here, the one that led to this law
in the first place, is the fact that real law
enforcement types don't want this crap. They want
"sexier" assignments that will look better in terms
of promotion.

This is about "career minded opportunists" rather
than laziness. FBI agents want to do things that
the FBI has been traditionally known for ( drugs,
armed robbery, kidnapping, terrorism).

Re:Yey! Victory! (2, Funny)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 5 years ago | (#25151249)

FBI agents want to do things that the FBI has been traditionally known for ( drugs, armed robbery, kidnapping, terrorism).

...I thought that was the CIA?

DOJ, off the reservation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25152063)

WTF DOJ... how do you expect the conservatives to complete the USA's transformation into a fascist police state if you won't play along?

Privatize gains and socialize losses- that's the goal of the "Fiscal Conservative". That, and "deficits don't matter", "mistakes were made", and "lessons were learned".

Corporate lawyers are expensive, you know! We can't have wealthy companies pay for that kind of stuff- the taxpayers would be really unhappy if they were robbed of their potential "trickle down" from the mega-rich. We can't get our tablescraps off the floor if we don't keep the wealth flowing to our conservative overlords.

"Immanent"? (0, Offtopic)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149361)

"Immanent"? If you're going to try and talk fancy, you really should make doubly sure you are actually spelling correctly.

Re:"Immanent"? (4, Informative)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149459)

"immanent" is a (correctly spelled) word, just not the right one. They meant "imminent" (impending), not "immanent" (indwelling). Chalk it up as you would lose/loose then/than or (my personal favorite) "should of" for "should've".

Re:"Immanent"? (4, Funny)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149495)

The post above is correct. They're version of the word is not correct. There pretty stupid at the DOJ. Their, I said it.

Re:"Immanent"? (2, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149527)

There pretty stupid at the DOJ.

Here here!!

Re:"Immanent"? (-1, Offtopic)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149585)

There pretty stupid at the DOJ.

Here here!!

Sheesh. You guys our such loosers.

Re:"Immanent"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25151259)

This thread is rediculous.

Re:"Immanent"? (0, Offtopic)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149519)

Well, not quite. "lose" and "loose" are both common words, and it's easy to see how people get confused about them. I doubt, however, that the submitter knew the word "immanent" and just confused it with "imminent". He just misspelled it, and by accident happened to spell another real and extremely uncommon word.

Re:"Immanent"? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25149743)

Since when is 'immanent' (or 'imminent') an extremely uncommon word?

Re:"Immanent"? (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25150075)

It's about 15 times less common than "imminent", according to Google, and at least 30 times less common than "inherent", and those are somewhat uncommon words already.

Re:"Immanent"? (1)

ari_j (90255) | more than 5 years ago | (#25150859)

Yeah, but he did so in the same sentence as he used the word suiformes. Learn the basics, and then progress to more "difficult" things. This is like someone (with no other programming experience) taking Visual Basic 101, getting a D in the class, and then starting to write kernel drivers the next day.

Re:"Immanent"? (1, Troll)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149947)

While what you say is true, it is still a spelling issue. One letter can make the difference between saying what you mean and spouting garbage. It is not enough to know what you mean to say, you must communicate that meaning correctly. The mistake made in the summary indicates someone who knew the sound of the word, but not the spelling. Lose/loose do not sound the same (lose - fuse, loose - moose) and indicate a different level of incompetence, even though they only differ by one letter.

Re:"Immanent"? (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 5 years ago | (#25151625)

The mistake made in the summary indicates someone who knew the sound of the word, but not the spelling.

Allow me ...

The mistake made in the summary indicates someone who was vaguely aware of how the word sounded, but not how to pronounce it correctly.

Re:"Immanent"? (1)

siride (974284) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152571)

No, because the words are pronounced the same, thanks to the fact that in English, the vowels in unstressed syllables are reduced to schwas.

Re:"Immanent"? (1)

memristance (1285036) | more than 5 years ago | (#25151903)

The last sentence in TFS makes perfect sense if you use Merriam-Webster's second definition of immanent [merriam-webster.com]. That is to say, the usage is correct if what the author meant to say was that the discovery of flying pigs is still within the limits of possible experience.

Re:"Immanent"? (1)

jefu (53450) | more than 5 years ago | (#25150981)

And "suiforms"?? I find (though not in a dictionary) "entelodonts and oreodonts" (pigs?). So, when "pigs fly". Have to say though that the fragment :

the discovery of winged suiformes would appear to be immanent

has a certain intriguing cryptic elusiveness that - with a bit of checking - resolves to "finding pigs flying only in your mind", or to "finding piggy things flying that are an essential part of the universe" (perhaps the LHC will be tuned to finding them next).

Great idea! (4, Insightful)

WorldInChaos (1250700) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149397)

Finally, someone, somewhere - particularly in the Whitehouse, is thinking. I don't really care why, I just hope this bill never passes. The last thing we need are more enforcers of ignorance, taking advantage of those not in power.

Re:Great idea! (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149595)

I have no idea why you think they are thinking with any kind of common sense? Bush was thinking when he ordered the invasion of Iraq. What happened is that this is an election year, and the GOP has had nothing but trouble with the DOJ in the past 18 months. This would only serve as a source of more folly for politicians in the GOP who wish to be elected this year. The puppet masters told Bush to let/make this happen so that things don't get to out of kilter for the elections. Copyright cops would be the sound bite to really get the youth vote out to the polls this election, and who would win then? Who?

Re:Great idea! (1)

genner (694963) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149875)

opyright cops would be the sound bite to really get the youth vote out to the polls this election, and who would win then? Who?

Unless he's running for a third term not Bush.

Re:Great idea! (1)

Eccles (932) | more than 5 years ago | (#25150281)

Copyright cops would be the sound bite to really get the youth vote out to the polls this election, and who would win then? Who?

Someone who might investigate the myriad allegations against the Bush administration, that's who.

At long last.. Thinking! (4, Insightful)

malkavian (9512) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149405)

Maybe with the possibility of having to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out the financial sector, governmental offices are at long last waking up to the fact that they need to balance the books on behalf of the taxpayer. It's all very nice having campaign contributions from industry, but if there's no money in the coffers, winning the election will be a poisoned chalice. Already, there's no money in the coffers, but being seen to shell out more taxpayer money to support industry, with no return to the taxpayer, is pretty much political suicide in today's climate.
For the last god alone knows how many years, the basic taxpayer has been quiescent, going about the daily work, with the odd grumble or two, and the government has been able to get away with the odd outcry now and then. At the moment, a lot of people are looking long and hard at where every penny they pay goes. Not quite civil unrest, but certainly large scale discontent that could easily escalate.

Re:At long last.. Thinking! (1)

eredin (1255034) | more than 5 years ago | (#25150929)

Sadly, it's not the spending of hundreds of billions of dollars that is the worst of it--it's the printing of hundreds of billions of dollars. If you thought inflation was bad this year, just wait. The biggest burden on the taxpayer isn't the taxes, but rather the devaluation of the currency. Taxes--at whatever level--could soon be irrelevant.

It's nice to see the government passing on an opportunity to spend.

Not thinking, pandering (1)

Dareth (47614) | more than 5 years ago | (#25151027)

Did you hear the implied, "Show me the money!" in the article?

What is more profitable for the DOJ, going after drug crimes/criminals and confiscating cash and cars or going after copyright violators, and giving any revenue generated to the RIAA?

The next batch of proposed laws will have to cut the DOJ in on a slice of the action. Maybe let them resell the confiscated servers or take the money found on/near the "criminals".

Re:Not thinking, pandering (4, Insightful)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 5 years ago | (#25151847)

The next batch of proposed laws will have to cut the DOJ in on a slice of the action. Maybe let them resell the confiscated servers or take the money found on/near the "criminals".

No good. They still wouldn't go for it. It's one thing to RICO seize the property of drug rings, because they have mansions, Ferraris, and hefty bags stuffed with cash. Copyright infringers have what, exactly? A $1200 Dell computer and a poster of Marilyn Manson? There's no money in copyright infringement.

From the WHITE HOUSE? (5, Funny)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149409)

Oh my gawd. This ... came from the White House?

I guess a broken clock is still right twice a day. Either that, or the absurdity of the proposal was glaringly obvious, even to them.

Re:From the WHITE HOUSE? (1)

QX-Mat (460729) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149479)

I'm shocked.

Seriously. But then I think of all the mistakes of the current White House administration and the shock just ebbs away. Perhaps those pulling the strings at this moment in time are the ones told to previously "shut it" ?

I can't envisage the EU Commission (nor the Council who effectively take a deciding vote on all things undecided) going this way. Copyright lobbying over here is in a *bad* state. We have a non democratic mechanism (ie: the Commission and Council, qualified voting etc) that has out stayed their inital usefulness.

Matt

Re:From the WHITE HOUSE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25151197)

Non-responsive != non-democratic.

The Commission is the consensus of the member-states' governments of the day (who are the voters in the Council), and are apportioned to the member-states verrrry roughly based on size; the bigger member-states get two Commissioners, and the most important Directorates go to the bigger member-states at least half the time.

The opposition of any member-state's government of the day to a Commissioner would pretty much doom that particular Commissioner.

Remember that every member-state's government of the day has faced the electorate successfully, and must face it again within no more than five years. Each member-state's government of the day also must be responsible to that state's directly-elected national parliament and consult with it at least semiannually on matters involving the European Union.

Finally, the whole Commission must be approved by the directly elected European Parliament, which has very effectively extended this approval requirement into a de facto veto on individual Commission members. The Parliament may also dissolve the whole Commission, and has likewise turned this into a de facto ability to force the resignation of an individual Commissioner.

The Council likewise may dismiss the whole Commission, and always clearly have had the power to require individual Commissioners to resign. It is pretty clear that a Commissioner from a given member-state who comes into serious conflict with that member-state's government of the day will also find staying a Commissioner untenable.

This is a clear case of "dual democracy"; Commissioners are responsible to both the member states' current governments and the direct representatives of EU nationals (including those who do not support the governments of the day) in such a way that it is difficult to hide behind one or the other groupings. The dynamics of the Commissioners' dual paths of responsibility drives consensus politics in Brussels.

Consensus politics unfortunately tends to be part of the problem, because developing a consensus among the member-states and the Parliament is difficult work that often fails. Consequently, once consensus has been arrived at, it is extremely difficult to get any of the three principal constitutional bodies to back away from the common position.

Unfortunately, this also includes many cases where the consensus was agreed before interested parties were aware that the consensus development was underway. In these cases, the arrangements appear non-democratic because the interested parties feel locked out of the decision process. That's unhealthy, and is behind the general principle of subsidiarity and proximity to the voter that was in the proposed treaties establishing a consolidated constitution for the European Union.

Keeping governmental decision making as close to the individual voter and as local as possible is the long-standing consensus position of the EU in general since the Treaty of Amsterdam. Sadly, the current arrangements do not do this especially well, and the member-states frequently "outsource" unpopular local decisions to the Union as a whole, often with bogus arguments with respect to the requirement of pan-European implementation that would clearly be disallowed under the failed proposed constitutional treaties.

Euro-scepticism is therefore healthy even to many strong supporters of the EU in general, because it tends to encourage national governments to avoid this abusive "outsourcing" of unpopularity, mainly by "clawing back" delegated sovereignty from the EU in many different areas at once.

Re:From the WHITE HOUSE? (2, Insightful)

aurispector (530273) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149497)

This position is consistent with actual conservative beliefs, e.g., smaller government, less government interference. At least one apparently still exists in the administration.

The dems have been in the pocket of the trial lawyers and entertainment industry for years. That's why Pelosi, Reid, etc., shill for bills like this. Scary.

Re:From the WHITE HOUSE? (1)

ruin20 (1242396) | more than 5 years ago | (#25150199)

...even to them but not the Senate Judiciary Committee which passed the bill in a 14-4 vote. And before we mouth off on partisan politics it was sponsored and drafted by both a Dem. and a Rep. senator.

Am I reading this right? (4, Funny)

runlevelfour (1329235) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149429)

"The Bush administration is opposing sweeping legislation granting it the ability to prosecute civil cases of copyright infringement" I mean, it's early so maybe I am sleep-hallucinating that the Bush Administration or DoJ actually refuses power. Then again, it could just be the typical arrogance of either of those groups that if they want it, they will just take it. Or, maybe the LHC did cause a time-space continuum rip before it went kaput and were just now seeing the effects.

Re:Am I reading this right? (1)

Cheerio Boy (82178) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149543)

You're not hallucinating. I just wish we could get more reality like this...

(Posting to reverse mod mistake.)

It's quite simple (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25149575)

The answer is really very simple. You just missed the other news report with the headline: 'RIAA Refuses to Cough Up USD700 billion in "Campaign Funds"'

Re:Am I reading this right? (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149615)

"The Bush administration is opposing sweeping legislation granting it the ability to prosecute civil cases of copyright infringement" I mean, it's early so maybe I am sleep-hallucinating that the Bush Administration or DoJ actually refuses power.

They're not refusing power so much as refusing to take responsibility. And rightly so! Why should the taxpayers foot the legal bills for the **AA?

Re:Am I reading this right? (1)

Iridium_Hack (931607) | more than 5 years ago | (#25150217)

Good Point. Or maybe the Bush Admin Dept. of Justice would like to save the power and time for something else.

Limiting the next in power? (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 5 years ago | (#25151071)

Maybe they're expecting that it's likely they'll lose the election, so they'll just drop a few last-minute barriers in place to reduce the Democrat's power if/when they take office...

Translation (4, Insightful)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149433)

"Hollywood, send more money to GOP."

Re:Translation (1)

runlevelfour (1329235) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149451)

....and the Labor Unions, send more money to the Democrats. It sickens me to how bad they Labor Unions have been corrupted, I have no faith that the rank and file would support something like this. What should really scare everyone is this is bi-partisan. Once again, we have no real opposition party.

Re:Translation (4, Insightful)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149461)

"Hollywood, send more money to GOP."

What does this say about the Democratic party when the bill breezes through their hands unfettered? And the Republicans are saying no?

Re:Translation (5, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149705)

What does this say about the Democratic party when the bill breezes through their hands unfettered? And the Republicans are saying no?

It says that Hollywood has paid the Democrats rather well and not so much for the Republicans. But then again, it's been that way for a very long time [opensecrets.org] -- Hollywood makes no secret of favoring the Democrats and Democratic causes. Some of the largest contributors to the Democratic Party and to Democratic candidates for office include some of the biggest names in Hollywood -- Steven Spielberg, David Geffen, etc.

bipartisan means both sides, no? (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 5 years ago | (#25150299)

Hmm, i thought it wasn't purely the Dems. Still, probably the Republicans get more money from oil.

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25151593)

That both parties are completely broken and backwards.

--Canada

Presidential Comments on Imaginary Property (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25149437)

For once I'd like to hear what our Presidential and VP Candidates think about Copyright Corps / Imaginary Property. It could change some votes, so let's hear. Biden is rumored an RIAA man. How about he says something one way or another?

Re:Presidential Comments on Imaginary Property (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25149613)

By "some" you mean 3, right? The economy is on the verge of collapse, but hey, as long as you get to keep stealing music life is good, right?

Re:Presidential Comments on Imaginary Property (3, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25150003)

Most of what you classify as "stealing" should be in the
same category as trading copies of Beowulf or The Republic.
The state of the law when you were born is consistent with
this notion. It was changed to suit a small number of
corporations.

        Don't let actual facts get in the way of feeling morally superior.

If only the copyright act were to be repelled... (1)

bboxman (1342573) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149441)

... My day would be complete. Imaginary property is hogwash, and shouldn't be protected.

Re:If only the copyright act were to be repelled.. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25149839)

If Imaginary Property is real, where are the Imaginary Laws to protect it? Can't I just imagine someone breaking down my door and hauling me off to court to be slapped with a hundred thousand dollar fine? If that's the case, can I just pretend I sent them the money? Seriously, I love music, and the concept of imaginary property is plausible...but if it all sounds the same, whose imagination did it come from? Who really owns it? We need new styles and fresh sounds. Why doesn't someone invent a new instrument to replace the Electric Guitar? THAT would be innovation. Peace Out.

Re:If only the copyright act were to be repelled.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25152869)

Your failure to find variations and creativity in music is not representative of a stagnant music industry.

so google chrome is dead now? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25149469)

who is better

[ ] Chris di bona
[ ] Katz
[ ] Rob malda
[ ] Cowboy neal

Be for you get to be to optimistic (4, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149473)

This seems to stop the DOJ from prosecution these cases with tax money. That is NOT a-typical of the Bush administration. What they would rather see is that the record labels have their own private police force that the record labels pay for. Small goverment, big business. Makes perfect sense.

Remember that if it is the DOJ that prosecutes these cases AND the only one who can do this, that would put copyright infringement up against all other crimes for attention. Plus there would be far more oversight of the cases.

Remember what happened in germany? There these cases belong firmly in the hands of the justice department and then justice department told the record industry that they can't be arsed. Case closed.

That is NOT what happened in the US so far. In the US, the justice department can't be arsed BUT the record labels are given more and more powers (or not being stopped) from investigating and prosecuting these cases themselves. If you are worried about to much police power, you should be even more worried about police power in private hands.

Re:Be for you get to be to optimistic (4, Insightful)

Harin_Teb (1005123) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149749)

WOW.

So you are actually arguing in SUPPORT of government funded private lawsuits for big business.

I never thought I would see the day when an argument for the government footing the bill for RIAA suits on slashdot got modded "Insightful."

Yes the copyright cops would be competing for funding with real crimes. OK. So they only get 3 million a year to do copyright suits. There is NOTHING in the bill that stops private copyright suits also. RESULT: RIAA continues its current racket of suing the little guy, and now the government jumps in on the action too!

but I forgot, if the white house opposes something we must be in favor of it.

Re:Be for you get to be to optimistic (1, Troll)

CajunArson (465943) | more than 5 years ago | (#25150895)

Ah yes.. but remember that this is Slashdot and everything the Bush administration does must be seen as being worse than Hitler. So, even though the DoJ did something people on this site generally agree with, we have to all change our positions and say that this means the Constitution has been destroyed and America is a concentration camp on principle.

Re:Be for you get to be to optimistic (4, Insightful)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 5 years ago | (#25150425)

Copyright is not a criminal matter, the record labels do not have their own police force or police powers. They bring a private prosecution to defend private "property". It is not the governments job to actively seek out and defend against infringements on private property.
Think about trespass. Yes it is illegal to trespass on anothers property, but you don't expect the police to actively seek out trespassers. That is the job of the landowner, to watch out for their own property, and call for help if and when the need arises.
Christ you don't want the police having even more responsibilities do you ? Look at the situation with emergency phone calls now. There are hundreds if not thousands of twats who expect the police to act as a free taxi service, a free search engine and all sorts of stupid things. Imagine the situation where you could phone the police and complain about copyright infringement. Most people don't understand copyright anyway and giving them an easy to use one stop shop for reporting "infringements" would be ludicrous.
I think the clue is in the name - Department of Justice. It's where you go to realise justice. They don't come to you unless you are a criminal.
With rights come responsibilities. In the case of copyrights, those responsibilities are being ignored. Copyright is a limited term right to be the sole entity that can copy a work. But that limited term is being extended instead of curtailed. That is what the DoJ should focus on, not doing the dirty work for the irresponsible rights holders.

Re:Be for you get to be to optimistic (2, Informative)

will_die (586523) | more than 5 years ago | (#25150511)

Copyright is treated as both a criminal matter and a civil matter depending on the quantity of items copied also if you are making a profit from them there is a better chance that it will be considered criminal. Also depends on the country.

Winged suiformes - so witty! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25149481)

However, it didn't seem quite so witty given the misspelling of "imminent." Luckily, we have "editors" here at Slashdot to take care of these things...

An idea (1)

jnmontario (865369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149509)

Here's a thought, have gov't tell industry that they'll do it, but slip in a caveat that the proceeds of prosecution should go to bail out Wall street while it's in jeopardy....see what Hollywood thinks of that.

there are Constitutional matters with the bill as (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149553)

there are Constitutional matters with the bill as well so even if passed the gov will end spend a lot just on that going to court.

Re:there are Constitutional matters with the bill (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 5 years ago | (#25150423)

there are constitutional matters with the patriot act too.

I just wonder if this decision isn't self-serving somehow, or if they realize that the jig is up and we'd call bullshit on them.

The industry is not losing money to home users (4, Interesting)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25149603)

The movie industry in particular wonders why it's having a tough time, well, have you looked at the cost of most movies lately? How about Blu-Ray? Gee, I wonder why $30 disks aren't flying off the shelves, and the technology being generally adopted, in an economy that is going sour. Couldn't possibly be because if you walked into a typical retailer, the movies are priced as though nothing has changed in the economy since 1998-1999, could it?

When these cartels start pricing toward a more realistic economy of scale, and still have no luck selling stuff, I'll gain an ounce of pity for them. Not enough to support this sort of handout, but enough to actually consider them victims of the economy, rather than their own ivory tower mentality ("the law says we have these rights, fuck the real world, fuck the economy, our rights, rights rights, all say that we can charge this much and there's nothing anyone can do about it!")

I agree with the Bush Administration? (2, Funny)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 5 years ago | (#25150029)

I agree with the Bush Administration on something? Quick! Everyone duck! There are aviating porcine about!

New word proposal (5, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#25150447)

I would like to propose that we adopt a new word in the English language:

Buypartisan: A bill sponsored by politicians from both parties who are both being paid off.

Wow... (0, Flamebait)

db32 (862117) | more than 5 years ago | (#25150543)

Now, I'm not terribly surprised here. I can't imagine why a Republican would want to use taxpayer money to pay for lawyers for an organization that dumps so much cash into the opposing party. Now, they are more than happy to use taxpayer money on organizations that favor Republicans.

The real question here is are the flying pigs wearing lipstick?

Pinch me i must be dreaming (2, Funny)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25150605)

A government agency not jumping on a chance to expand its authority and funding?

Perhaps the Mayans ware right and the world is about to end after all.

Remember the Unitary Executive (3, Insightful)

magus_melchior (262681) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152897)

Others have mentioned this, but well-nested in other comment threads.

The Bush administration (in particular, Dick Cheney) has rejected this primarily because this is an "intrusion of the legislature" into the affairs of the executive. Cheney has resented any Congressional oversight or involvement in the White House ever since Nixon resigned, and after he failed to get Bush 41 to ditch Congress, he got Bush 43 to let him run the White House and thus ditch Congress directly. The (then) Republican majority went along with this, because they had a Republican in the White House to rubber-stamp their bills.

In this case, conflicting priorities have turned this very dangerous bill out for the better. Even if Congress passes and later overrides a veto, Cheney and/or Bush will simply starve it out of significance, if not existence. But be wary of the media industry cartels (RIAA, MPAA, BSA members-- others will likely list them up) lobbying the White House directly to get the President to appoint a copyright czar by executive order!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...