×

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!

Google Accused of Violating Copyright In China

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the capitalist-running-dogs dept.

Books 247

angry tapir writes "The Chinese Authors Society has demanded that Google present a resolution plan by the end of the year and quickly handle compensation for Chinese authors whose books the US company has scanned without permission as part of its Book Search program. A local copyright protection group, co-founded by the authors group, has said it found at least 17,000 Chinese works included in Google's scanning plan."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

247 comments

anonymous coward accused of first posting (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167044)

on slashdot. Now eat my asshole!

China is getting pretty uppity (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167064)

For being nothing more than thieves they have a lot of nerve.

Re:China is getting pretty uppity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167086)

Yes because "they do it too" is a valid excuse.

Does that also mean I can violate copyrights owned by US citizens & companies because Google does?

Re:China is getting pretty uppity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167400)

Google isn't the US government.

Must suck to be stupid.

Re:China is getting pretty uppity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167576)

Google isn't the US government.

Who said they were?

Must suck to be stupid.

Let us know when you figure it out.

Re:China is getting pretty uppity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167704)

The person you're replying to, numbnuts.

China's government treats copyright infringement of non-Chinese things pretty carelessly. Completely anecdotal and anonymous, but many people claim to have seen only pirated copies of Windows in Chinese Government offices.

Original poster claimed this. First responder swapped the roles, and made Google be China in the Original Poster's example. OP says "China steals stuff", implying the country, the people, and the government, so them whining about Google doing so is silly. First responder asks "Google steals stuff, so now we can ripoff everything Americans do?" That's just .. idiotic.

Re:China is getting pretty uppity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30168020)

The person you're replying to, numbnuts.

The point being nobody else has mentioned government. Its just something the person pulled out their ass.

China's government treats copyright infringement of non-Chinese things pretty carelessly.
Completely anecdotal and anonymous, but many people claim to have seen only pirated copies of Windows in Chinese Government offices.

Oh.. anecdotal and anonymous evidence? It must be true then. I could quite easily make up some anonymous and anecdotal evidence
that the US government pirates 71% of its software. Google disagrees with you though. The only mention of government offices and pirated
copies of Windows in China was claims by the BSA of a 70% piracy rate.

Original poster claimed this. First responder swapped the roles, and made Google be China in the Original Poster's example. OP says "China steals stuff", implying the country, the people, and the government, so them whining about Google doing so is silly.

How does it imply that unless the OP is claiming everyone in China steals stuff? To me it implies that some people in China steal stuff.

First responder asks "Google steals stuff, so now we can ripoff everything Americans do?" That's just .. idiotic.

Just as idiotic as saying Google can steal stuff because some people in China do.

Re:China is getting pretty uppity (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167230)

Huawawa! Ching chong chang hwhawa ching chang CHONG. [resist.com] \_/

Cho wong wang CHING CHANG \_/ ting tong ping pong WA! [resist.com]

Tong tam tang ho hai [asianboygay.com] chung chong chang wong DONG! [flickr.com]

\_/ \_/ \_/ hiiiiiiiiYAAAAAAAAAH!

Is this really about copyright? (4, Interesting)

a302b (585285) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167244)

Is this really about copyright? Or is it an excuse for the Chinese Government to have greater control over books written in Chinese (some of which may be potentially critical of the government)?

Re:Is this really about copyright? (5, Insightful)

Dysphoric1 (1641793) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167436)

Is this really about copyright?

Absolutely. The way the world works is, when you are the underdog you "steal" the IP of all the countries around you until you achieve some level of economic parity, and then you hypocritically pull the ladder up behind you to try and prevent anyone else from doing the same.

America did it. South Korea did it. Now, China is doing it. It's about preserving economic hegemony, nothing more.

Fuck China (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167066)

Bunch of totalitarian worker bees out to take over the world.

Freedom is better than a tyrannical government.

Please take note, Republitards. China is what a totalitarian government. You know, like Republicans try to push every time they are in power.

Re:Fuck China (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167462)

"Freedom is better than a tyrannical government."

Are you talking about China, or the 95-120 year copyright monopoly enforcement (with a potential 5 year jail time for copying silent films from the 1920's)?

China have copyright ? (1, Insightful)

JaCKeL 1.0 (670980) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167068)

C'mon they copy everything...

Re:China have copyright ? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Cowar (1608865) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167090)

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. Note the color of one's carbon-stained surface.

Yeah, pretty much they don't recognize external ip rights (which i think is awesome, not because of the freedom of stuff and stuff, but mostly because i'm always a fan of a good old fashioned screw-em mentality), and yet want theirs protected. Yeah...

Re:China have copyright ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167116)

Stop shitting all over that poor man's kettle. It was a bright and shiny silver color until you took a big dump all over its spout, handle and lid.

Re:China have copyright ? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167142)

I can only note the color of your mum's jizz-stained surface.

- Anonymous Cowhardon

Re:China have copyright ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167480)

If China's view is that local copyrights are only to be enforced locally, Google's China presence requires that that entity complies with local copyrights only. There is no contradiction.

Re:China have copyright ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167502)

What's more, it sure seems to me that China is only superficially arguing on behalf of all those Chinese authors, when what they are really seeking is compensation for the Chinese government.

Re:China have copyright ? (5, Funny)

Techman83 (949264) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167092)

Two wongs don't make a right....

Re:China have copyright ? (4, Funny)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167186)

But two Wrights made an airplane.

Re:China have copyright ? (1)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167370)

But three rights make a left....

GP, see what you started? You're to blame.

Re:China have copyright ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167580)

Look kids, two wrongs don't make a right. It takes 3 lefts to make a right. (Sorry, too much geography and graph theory in university, bastards!).

Re:China have copyright ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167308)

Do no evil.

Re:China have copyright ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30168176)

Ah but do they make a white?

under the acta google will be down in less then 1 (2, Insightful)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167104)

under the acta google will be down in less then 1 hour

Re:under the acta google will be down in less then (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167468)

I say block all of china and china sites from google access or listing. Screw em. Honestly China's e-commerce will crumble overnight if Google shut them off. with a " Google will not give results to sites that are in untrustable and hostile countries like china.

China's Economy RELIES on the United states, a large company that is used by 60% of all internet users to find information can cripple an entire countries economy instantly by blocking them.

Show china who is boss. Delist them all.

Re:under the acta google will be down in less then (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167606)

How about we just cut off Chinese IP space, that will mean all the MMORPG's will suddenly be free of spam and bots, win-win.

Re:under the acta google will be down in less then (2, Insightful)

sabernet (751826) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167660)

"Hello, my name is China and I wish to liquidate all my US Treasury Bonds."

Re:under the acta google will be down in less then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167750)

Sounds good -- let's offer 'em ten cents on the dollar (or eight cents on the Yuan)

Re:under the acta google will be down in less then (3, Insightful)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167770)

Exactly. Someone who finally gets it.

China has something like $1 trillion of our debt. If they dumped it - and they're not against this tactic - we'd all long for last year's economic downturn.

They fucking own us. Literally and figuratively.

They might own us, but guess who was selling... (0)

zooblethorpe (686757) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167934)

They fucking own us. Literally and figuratively.

So does that make us whores?

Or perhaps slaves or indentured servants might be more apt comparisons?

Oh, Canada,
You're looking better each day...

Cheers,

Re:under the acta google will be down in less then (4, Insightful)

slifox (605302) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167960)

Not quite... They own $1 trillion of our virtual currency

In exchange we got a lot of their material goods

If they abruptly ended the relationship one day and called in our debt, we would just default and they'd be left with nothing.
What option would they be left with? Go to war? Fat chance -- wars nowadays are fought with technology, not numbers of soldiers... and we spend almost as much as the rest of the world *combined* on defense (we spend $600 billion a year on military, whereas China is the 2nd highest with under $90 billion a year)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#Stockholm_International_Peace_Research_Institute_figures [wikipedia.org]

In the meantime, we would still have their manufactured items, and we'd just take our IP (read: engineering designs) to Malaysia or some other place (e.g. Mexico) for our manufacturing needs.

They don't "own us" -- it's a mutually beneficial relationship that requires both parties to take part.
Every country that plays the "globalization" game gets the benefits from and the dependency on every other player. As it stands now, they depend on us just like we depend on them. That could change, but it'd likely be a gradual change, or else a painful change for *both* sides.

Re:under the acta google will be down in less then (1)

Majik Sheff (930627) | more than 4 years ago | (#30168130)

You forget that they could give every able-bodied Chinese citizen a pointy stick and dump them on our shores. We'd be so hopelessly overrun our tech wouldn't matter.

Re:under the acta google will be down in less then (3, Insightful)

anarche (1525323) | more than 4 years ago | (#30168214)

How exactly do they get them to the US shores?

Re:under the acta google will be down in less then (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 4 years ago | (#30168166)

We would "just default"?

What America have you been watching for the last 50+ years. There's no way we'd politically do that.

Re:under the acta google will be down in less then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30168288)

If they abruptly ended the relationship one day and called in our debt, we would just default and they'd be left with nothing.

There's probably a reason why the US owes so much money to other countries. Who do you think will lend money to them the next time, if they've proven they don't intend to pay it back?

And then what? Go to war against the rest of the world? Yeah ...

"and we'd just take our IP"

You really think they'd give a damn about IP after the US defaulted on that amount of money? They'd just flood the market with copies or even new developments and say "Screw you!" to everybody's patent laws :)

Re:under the acta google will be down in less then (4, Insightful)

Fred IV (587429) | more than 4 years ago | (#30168004)

They fucking own us. Literally and figuratively.

If you owe the bank $100,000 they own you, but if you owe the bank $1,000,000,000,000 you own them.

China's fate is just as wrapped up in the value of that debt as our own is.

Re:under the acta google will be down in less then (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 4 years ago | (#30168238)

"Hi, China, I'm the U.S.
Sorry but I don't want you to do that and I make the rules.

P.S. Our airforce is bored and if we don't use our nukes soon they're going to hit their use-by date. Just sayin'"

17000 works = about 9 cents American (1)

MadRat (774297) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167176)

Judging by their protection of U.S. Property I'd say pay the nine cents already and move on already. It's only fair to pay them their fair share.

In other news (5, Interesting)

debile (812761) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167182)

In other news, Baidu implement a website to download MP3s
http://mp3.baidu.com/ [baidu.com]

Re:In other news (1)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167522)

I don't know about you, but I do not read or speak Cantonese or Mandarin (if that is what that was) and thus found it difficult to figure out what is what on that site.

Regardless, I didn't see Britney Spears or anyone even remotely non-asian on that website (the lil' pictures) so I have to assume it is all Chinese music.

So what is your point?

I assume you are implying that the MP3s on that site are all illegal downloads (given the context of the thread) yet I cannot seem to locate anything on that site that would indicate that.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that the Chinese have very little respect for IP rights, but how does that link fit the thread? Is it a pay site, or just a clearinghouse for jacked music?

Just asking. And what is with the Top 500 coming before the Top 200 but after the top 100? Odd.

Re:In other news (4, Informative)

VocationalZero (1306233) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167684)

I don't know about you, but I do not read or speak Cantonese or Mandarin (if that is what that was) and thus found it difficult to figure out what is what on that site.

You also seem to not know how to use an internet translator...

Regardless, I didn't see Britney Spears or anyone even remotely non-asian on that website (the lil' pictures) so I have to assume it is all Chinese music.

Oh really? What about the section titled " [Japan and South Korea Pop]" or another titled " [Europe and the United States Songs]"? Also, turns out Britney Spears is listed as #5 under "[Europe and the United States singers]", you just didn't bother to mouse over the tabs. China only cares about copyright violation only when they're the ones on the losing end, but this is nothing new.

On a side note, I wonder how much the US national debt is compared to the total amount of software, music and movies China has pirated over the years. Both would astronomical, but are we talking Pluto, or Alpha Centauri?

P.S. mod grandparent [debile] up, blatant hypocrisy is blatant.

Re:In other news (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167840)

I don't know about you, but I do not read or speak Cantonese or Mandarin (if that is what that was) and thus found it difficult to figure out what is what on that site.

Hey, that's no problem. Just use Google to translate that page and...

Oh, wait.

Re:In other news (1)

asamad (658115) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167610)

not news to others, but I just noticed how similar baidu.com is to google - what laugh

Same treatment (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167188)

I think google should address this with as much tenacity as the chinese government has in enforcing copyright of non-chinese works/programs/music.
One also has to wonder what China is trying to prove. First microsoft and now google

It doesn't go both ways (3, Insightful)

Random5 (826815) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167234)

For all the rampant piracy the chinese government ignores, google can't just ignore their IP rights - china will end up blocking them and they'll all start using yahoo or bing. Would be nice if they could stick it to them and say that the copyright doesn't apply in the US or something but really, you just can't with these people.

Re:It doesn't go both ways (3, Informative)

marcansoft (727665) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167342)

Do the Chinese even use Google much? I thought the most popular search engine there was Baidu [baidu.com]. In fact, I seem to recall that China redirected Google to Baidu at least once.

Re:It doesn't go both ways (4, Insightful)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167346)

On one hand, lose a chance at the biggest market available?

Or the other, bend over to all of China's whims?

Such a hard decision for companies...

Re:It doesn't go both ways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30168036)

Using Yahoo or Bing? Hahahahahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahaha Hahaha Ha Haaaa Hahahahahaha

Copywrong. (5, Interesting)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167330)

I'll tell you what I think and it is in the public domain for anyone to use. If your nation is too backwards to allow a public domain then I grant you an unlimited license to use in any manner you see fit with or without attribution.

I'm a privateer. I decided to become one recently. What sparked this decision is the fact that content industries are stealing from me. When copyright was first introduced it was for a period of fourteen years which allowed the creator time to make a profit off of their work even with primitive dissemination systems of the time. After that period it expired and entered the public domain where it would join other works in a rich mosaic for future works to draw from. This is dead. Over the years copyright terms have been extended to the point where there effectively is no public domain anymore. The content industry plays lip-service to the issue, they insist that there is a public domain but when every work is at least life of author plus seventy-five years or so there is in reality no public domain from my life's point of view. I will never see Alien (1979) enter the public domain. I will never see a new original movie based off that setting and characters. I will never see the iron grip of control loosened and in fact I'm sure content is planning more extensions to the terms. Government is complicit in this, politicians have accepted bribes, er.. campaign donations, in exchange for listening to these idiotic and greedy lobbies and passing the appropriate legislation right on cue like their training taught them. Even if magically there are no more extensions to copyright by the time current terms expire the works in question will be irrelevant. No one will be interested in them any more as their times have passed. This gutting of the copyright agreement between publishers and citizens has resulted in copyright not being copyright anymore: it is now a form of property and you will pay for every single last use. In response to this wholesale theft from me I have decided to liberate what I see fit. Go to hell content. I will take whatever I like as you are raping and pillaging through my cultural tapestry. The day I stop will be the day there is an actual agreement restored. I would be willing to settle for twenty years for a copyright term which is even more generous than the original fourteen. With a twenty year period I would also like to see as a punishment for twisting our heritage that only copyrights younger than ten years would be protected from the start. In another ten you'd be up to your twenty. Bite me content you're a parasite and you are stealing from me directly. Anything 1989 and older is a moral right to me and until you stop reneging on the social contract everything newer is as well.

Re:Copywrong. (3, Informative)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167412)

Cool! Who signed your letter of marque?

Re:Copywrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167432)

Ron Paul.

Re:Copywrong. (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167458)

Ok, who is Ron Paul? This feeling has been building in me over time as I begin to understand the damage content industries are doing to the average citizen. Wouldn't you like to have a device you could plug into your home network that you would insert DVDs into and it would rip them then stream them over your home network to any compliant extender? Too bad, we're going to take our DMCA and go home. Wait till we get Selectable Output Control passed...

Re:Copywrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167482)

Woosh!

Re:Copywrong. (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167676)

Most Americans have never heard of Ron Paul, let alone anyone who isn't from the USA.

Re:Copywrong. (2, Funny)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167872)

Most Americans have never heard of Ron Paul, let alone anyone who isn't from the USA.

Isn't he the guy who got into the zeppelin wars with Cory Doctorow? I forget which colour his lightsabre was, though.

- Australian

Re:Copywrong. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167570)

I hope you go to prison and get aids in a jail rape.

Re:Copywrong. (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167598)

Actually if I was ever charged I'm sure the EFF would be interested in what I have to say. Me against billions of dollars in funding for lawyers? Would be a fun fight so fuck them.

Re:Copywrong. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167716)

yawn! anyone who really wanted to could get into that fight in about a week's time. if you really had a real plan and the balls to carry it out you'd be making headlines - not ranting like an eight year old.

Re:Copywrong. (3, Interesting)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167760)

Actually I have nothing to lose. What are they going to do, render a judgement for $stupid_amount_of_cash against me? Yeah good luck against someone who is not a materialist. And here in Canada our prisons aren't the meat grinders like down there in the states. It would suck but I'd feel good about the whole thing. Fuck them. My post is contrary to the line the MPAA/RIAA continually spoon-feed to the sheep and it highlights a dissenting point of view. Something that is on the wane apparently between your two (man a binary view on issues is stupid) parties.

Re:Copywrong. (1)

novalis112 (1216168) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167672)

While I question your grounds for claiming a "moral right" to anything created before 1989, and your assertion that anything at all has been *stolen* from you, I do find your observation about the fact that you will never see any content created in your life time enter the public domain (if they are true, I know almost nothing about current copyright law, so I assume you are correct) to be a very interesting way of assessing the impact of the current copyright system. Personally, I haven't spent enough time considering the topic to be certain whether I am even in favor of a copyright system at all, but if you take it for granted that the essential concept is a good one, I think this is a very perceptive observation.

Re:Copywrong. (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167846)

Thank you very much I had hoped to spark some discussion and with you I have succeeded. My "moral right" is more of a "moral outrage" and that stems from the perceptions I've gathered over time observing how Content associations like the MPAA and the RIAA outright manipulate and misrepresent issues that are of public interest. It is just not right: they are bastards.

Re:Copywrong. (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167706)

Bite me content you're a parasite and you are stealing from me directly

How is content stealing from you? It's not taking anything away from you. It's never been easier to get your own content out there, and that is what is actually happening. The idea of deriving corporate power from copyright is going to be silly because, yeah, the Alien movie with guys in a spaceship fighting an alien may never be public domain, but who fricking cares because there's 100 movies and video games out there aliens in spaceships and every day that passes, they are going to get cheaper and cheaper and cheaper to make. You are all caught up having the Nostromo? So what? Make up your own ship, the Slashdoto, and have it get infested with fricking monster. Big deal.

Re:Copywrong. (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167800)

What irritates me are the secondary effects of Hollywood trying to make their last gasp. Bad legislation such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which prevents many legitimate and useful consumer devices from entering the market - even here in Canada where it is not law. Hollywood is dead they just don't know it yet, have you noticed that machinima is steadily improving? nVidia's Fermi graphics processor already renders images that are indistinguishable from real life. Throw in some voice-synthesis software and some directing software and anyone with the time to render will be able to best Hollywood's stranglehold on entertainment. Maybe they do see that and thats why their scared as shit to lock up everything they do have hoping it will actually still have any value twenty years from now.

Re:Copywrong. (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167812)

Content in the figurative, represented today by the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America. Both are pushing their agendas and manipulating discussion according to their goals. Time to poke back just because their assholes.

*Whoosh!* They ARE stealing from you. (4, Insightful)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167938)

*Whoosh!* There goes the point right over your head. Big content is stealing from you.

They're taking your history and your heritage. Imagine a ludicrous extreme, such as the hospital you were born in saying that you can no longer use the name that you were given at birth unless you pay for it because it happened on their premises, therefore they own the rights to it. Or if you are in immigrant, imagine someone telling you that you can no longer describe where you're from, because that information is "owned" by the country from which you came. (God forbid you draw a map!)

Similarly, the music that was on the radio when I was a child? I'm prohibited by law from sharing that with my friends. Movies that have become so deeply ingrained in our culture that we constantly refer to them... "May the force be with you." "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas any more." "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." "Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!" Yeah, in spite of them being part of the very fabric of our culture, you're legally prohibited from sharing them with your kids without paying your pound of flesh to people who did something great decades ago (or in some cases, to estates of long dead people).

Look, I'm all for compensating artists justly for what they do. In 1962, Paul McCartney, John Lennon, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr released a clever little song called Love Me Do. It was a bona fide hit, and they made a lot of money off of it. So be it, they deserve it. But now it's 47 years later. Do you really contend that the song was so unbelievably great, so untouchably amazing, that Paul, Ringo, and the estates of George and John should STILL be making money when a radio plays it?

Or let's look at it another way. Don't you think that's being way too overgenerous to artists? I mean, these past few years, I've been doing some of the greatest work in my professional life in a computer datacenter. I've gotten consistently great reviews, and I feel like I've made a real positive difference for the company where I'm employed. They've paid me well, I'm not complaining. But if I walked out tomorrow, wouldn't you agree that it's kind of silly to expect them to STILL keep paying me because they're enjoying the fruits of my labor while I worked there? 50 years after I'm dead, should they STILL be paying my estate because my contributions in the first decade of the 2000's contributed to the history of the company being great?

When I retire, I'm going to be living off of money I've saved up during my lifetime specifically because I don't expect my former employers to still be paying for my work 70 years after I die. Why is it that an artist who writes a hit song, a writer who writes a best-seller, an actor who turns in an Oscar-winning performance, gets that luxury? My opinion is that if you want to continue making money off of your work, get out there and work like the rest of us do. No one should get a lifetime + 70 years of resting on their laurels because they did something great. Like the rest of us, if they want to retire in comfort, they should set aside some of the money they make during the height of their popularity so they'll have it after the limited time [usconstitution.net] that copyright is supposed to be valid.

Re:*Whoosh!* They ARE stealing from you. (-1, Flamebait)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 4 years ago | (#30168108)

You're a whiny idiot.

you're legally prohibited from sharing them with your kids

What, you can't play those movies in front of your kids? Of course you can. Oh, I get it... you just don't want to cough up $1.99 for a used DVD of Planet of the Apes to have on the shelf.

Do you really contend that the song was so unbelievably great, so untouchably amazing, that Paul, Ringo, and the estates of George and John should STILL be making money when a radio plays it?

Apparently you do, or you wouldn't be so hung up on it. Why not sit down across from Paul, look him in the eye, and persuade him to wave off on his copyrights? Surely he'll see your point of view. And if he doesn't, and won't give away his work, then why would you want to be entertained by him anyway, since you consider him to be a thief? Show a little intellectual integrity. If entertainers you respect choose to hang onto their rights for as long as the elected congress has said they can, and you can't persuade either congress or the entertainers you claim to respect to change the situation, then go somewhere else for your entertainment so that you don't have to pollute your fragile psyche with words, films, or music made by people whose world view you hate.

Nothing is being stolen from you. You just quoted movies, in a manner perfectly in keeping with Fair Use. Was that so bad, really? Here's a thought: pick up some of the best writing ever done, which is completely in the public domain. Read some Mark Twain. Read some Shakespeare. A lot of people who were 50 when they first picked up a copy of Letters From The Earth had no expectation at the time of outliving its copyright period, either. And - shockingly - their lives were still richer for having actually read the work.

I'm sorry you're too lazy to conjure up something distinct of your own, and too shortsighted to support other artists who do. It's a shame that mashups of Alien and Gilligan's Island are, to you, the life blood of human culture and the fabric of what you imagine society to be at its best.

The only person stealing from you is yourself. Pathetic.

"Happens all the time." (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#30168212)

Copyright is portrayed as a contract. Thats just to get peoples hopes up. With the spirit of copyright he should just be able to go to his favorite torrent site and download it for free. Fuck the corporate perpetual welfare tax. The people who threw off the yoke of British oppression were some pretty smart dudes and they weighed the balance of what is good for the individual and what is good for culture: you know winning the rest of the world over with your ideals so they'll be more like you and less likely to lob a nuclear weapon at you... Politicians and lobby groups are in collusion. Sonny Bono, a musician with a large base of created works was responsible for pushing one of the extensions through. Conflict of interest? Happens all the time, just look away and ignore the man behind the curtain. I believe that you've swallowed the propaganda that authority has coddled you with since you were a child. The real world is full of crooks and liars, usually they wear suits.

Re:Copywrong. How convenient! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167988)

You might have been able to claim a moral high ground had you chosen to observe the 1989 limit you suggest as reasonable, but by ignoring what you state is reasonable you show your true colors and they look suspiciously like a skull and crossbones. You are a pirate; you are simply trying to justify your illegal activities.

Re:Copywrong. How convenient! (2, Interesting)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#30168012)

I respectfully disagree. Content industries have stolen from me countless derivative works and from who would have been the creators of them innumerable dollars. It is more of vigilante justice: they have harmed the potential of so many things that could have contributed to my culture that I don't mind harming them back in the only thing that gets through their thick skulls: money.

Haha (5, Interesting)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167366)

/trollish mode on

Slashdot americanism knee-jerk on anything about China is just amazing.

/trollish mode off

This is not news. It was on local TV news several days ago. Basically, the Author's Society (a "guild"-like organization) said to Google something like this: "We know the benefits of scanned-and-indexed books and we want digital libraries, but why you're not paying for the copyrighted content?" So far the parties are negotiating a plan that is supposed to achieve mutual benefit.

BTW, I think Google was doing a right thing simply putting those books on-line and negotiate later. In the words of Admiral Grace Hopper, "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission." The books acquired without negotiating copyright serves as a good corpus of OCR calibration or "training" material. While the legal dept are doing the talking, the techies can take the time sharpen the tech.

Re:Haha (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167712)

it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

Indeed, Sony must think the same way [torrentfreak.com].

Of course, corporations can do this, but you're evil if you do it, citizen.

Re:Haha (0, Troll)

VocationalZero (1306233) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167912)

Slashdot americanism knee-jerk on anything about China is just amazing.

It's almost amazing as the Slashdot anti-"americanism" knee-jerk... wait, what were we lampooning again?

Re:Haha (1)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 4 years ago | (#30168050)

Slashdot americanism knee-jerk on anything about China is just amazing.

It's almost amazing as the Slashdot anti-"americanism" knee-jerk... wait, what were we lampooning again?

True... I just wonder is if the Slashdot anti-americanists and the anti-everyone-else-ists are actually the same people.

The Only Answer! (1, Interesting)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167372)

Since we in the US seem to now be also controlled by every governments' copyright laws the only answer is to insure that all of us at every single moment are under perpetual surveillance to be absolutely certain that we comply with the laws of every brutal, jerk water, banana republic on the face of the Earth. After all copyright is just sooooooo important!

GOOOO - let them read their own works (1)

oleop (974651) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167390)

I guess 1 bln readers is enough for these guys. And, with such an ancient history - who needs all these authors whos works still copyrightprotected.

Scanning != Copying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167466)

I don't see how they can prevent someone from scanning the works, which seems to be what this group wants. Copying or displaying it on the book website surely falls under parts of copyright law, but the mere act of scanning itself? It's a copyright, not "readright" -- unless of course the IP rights laws are very out of whack in China.

Re:Scanning != Copying (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 4 years ago | (#30168250)

Well, actually, scanning and then saving the scanned image IS making a copy of the work, by very definition. I would presume they're objecting to Google Books' free preview feature, in which case a polite "ahem, I believe I own the copyright to that book and I would like it to not be previewable" would be all that was required.

mmmm (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167506)

HOT GRITS DOWN YOUR PANTS! ..AND NATILE PORTMAN NAKED AND PETRIFIED!

caps caps caps caps caps caps caps capscaps caps caps caps caps caps caps capscaps caps caps caps caps caps caps capscaps caps caps caps caps caps caps capscaps caps caps caps caps caps caps capscaps caps caps caps caps caps caps capscaps caps caps caps caps caps caps caps

Gotta love them Americans (1, Offtopic)

Island Admin (1562905) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167638)

I just love the way Americans stick up for their companies ... when a foreign country lays a legit claim against them. And then of course, the next day when the same company is caught in dodgy dealings they are complete flame bait. What do you call this again? Oh yes ... Fickle!

You know... (1)

CrazyDuke (529195) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167646)

I can't help but wonder if this is retaliation for all the crap they get for infringing on non-China copyrights. You know, in a you-too, "Fine if you care about copyright so much pay up!" sort of way.

I can see them going after MS, since they like to pull BSA stunts in China. But, I don't know why Google, unless they just want to stick it to foreigners in general.

Hmmmm. Interesting (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167698)

First, I would look carefully at this. Google is sticking with western companies, specifically those that are based on English law (UK, Australia, Canada, and USA). They recently quit doing French and German. Now, the Chinese are claiming that their copyrights are infringed. Can Google simply drop the books? Seems to be fair, if none have been sold yet. In addition, if it has sold some, AND if they are to pay, then they should pay each book based on what one Chinese company would pay another (which is next to nothing if anything), and in Renminbi. China's fixing of their money, as well as their ignoring the IP theft of western goods, can and should work against them.

"Them"? (1)

vik (17857) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167850)

"Them" being the hard-working authors who are having their works ripped off, along with authors all over the world? Or "them" who only write bureaucratic documents? Those Chinese in Taiwan or the mainland? What about the ones who have emigrated? I believe they're generally different groups, and trying to collate the groups in that manner is not helpful.

IS China COMMUNIST?!?! (1)

amazingxkcd (1682296) | more than 4 years ago | (#30167720)

Wait a second, THIS CHINESE AUTHORS SOCIETY NOTICED THAT SOMEBODY SCANNED THEIR BOOK AND COMPLAIN?!?! CHINA HAS COURTS?!? ISN"T GOOGLE UNDER DISCRETION FROM THE GOVERNMENT ANYWAY!?!?? WHAT IS THIS COMMUNISM!?!? if they can sue Google, meaning they have rights, meaning that the government issued them, meaning that the government is not controlling, meaning that the government is not communist, then what is China?

Re:IS China COMMUNIST?!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167818)

china = commies = evil

1/10, you try too hard. I know it's difficult, but a good troll is believable.

Re:IS China COMMUNIST?!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167844)

you fail political science forever

mod uMp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167926)

it a b8eak, if

bong dong ching chong (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30167978)

chikitey china the chinese chicken, have a drumstick and your brain starts clickin

Very simple answer to this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30168206)

Has google started selling these? If not, then they CAN put these under ownership of a non-profit group and state that it is there for the preservation purposes. According to Chinese Law, that is LEGAL under section 4 [wikisource.org].
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...