Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

White House Holding Piracy Summit

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the meet-the-new-boss dept.

Government 268

DesScorp writes in to let us know about a White House piracy summit, which is going on this afternoon. Judging by the press accounts, the sort of intellectual property criminals they are interested in are large-scale DVD bootleggers, not individual downloaders. "Hollywood once again demonstrates its close ties to Washington DC, regardless of who is in power, with a White House summit on piracy to be attended by the top executives in Hollywood, as well as the music industry. Vice President Joe Biden will be leading the summit to discuss organized cooperation between the federal government and the entertainment industry on all matters of piracy. Also at the summit will be the Obama Administration's new Copyright Czar, Victoria Espinal. The summit comes after Congress has earmarked $30 million dollars of taxpayer funds for anti-piracy efforts." According to one attendee's tweet, the press was kicked out of the meeting around 20:45 GMT.

cancel ×

268 comments

!change (3, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450398)

Amazing how the more things change the more they stay the same, isn't it?

I can't wait to hear all of the partisans who rightfully complained about Dick Cheney's energy task force come out of the woodwork to tell us why this is "different".

Re:!change (2, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450416)

Al Gore Senior was one of the MafiAA's pet stooges who wrote/pushed the 1987 predecessor to the DMCA that tried to criminalize DAT tape unless it had a "copy protection flag" built in.

Amazing how some things never change, indeed!

Re:!change (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30450790)

Just keep voting for the same two parties while telling yourselves that "this time there'll be change, no really, they really mean it this time, I swear!" You want change, put a Libertarian president in office. I know it's trendy to denigrate Libertarianism and to talk about how it's the exact same thing as anarco-capitalism even though it isn't. That's cute, to take the most extreme possible view of something and represent it as the norm -- by that standard, all modern-day Catholics are members of the Inquisition, right?

At any rate, a person with a strict interpretation of the Constitution is an example of a Libertarian. Right now, that's exactly what we need. All of the problems we have today with copyright and anything else are the result of the federal government having too much power. A Libertarian is about the only type of candidate who would actually try to do something about that. A Libertarian would also seek to end the ridiculous failure known as the War on (some) Drugs and would not view the current healthcare debate as a reason to expand governmental authority. But just keep voting in the same people who created the system we now know and don't love, because that's real CHANGE. Right?

Re:!change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30451036)

When libertarians stop presenting us with a false dichotomy between the status quo and libertarianism, I'll stop denigrating them.

Libertarians are a lot like communists; either you buy into their radical ideology, or you're part of the problem. There are no shades of grey.

Re:!change (1, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451116)

Bullshit. There's a lot of shades of gray to libertarians.

Do you completely oppose regulation or do you just oppose the Federal Government stepping outside of the bounds of the Constitution?

Are you pro-life or pro-choice?

Are you opposed to the social safety net entirely or just the fact that the Federal Government is involved?

Are you in favor of a non-interventionist foreign policy or just opposed to the fact that Congress has ceded it's authority to declare war?

Are you in favor of blanket drug legislation or do you think it should be up to the states to decide the issue?

Those are just the issues off the top of my head that Libertarians have good-faith disagreements on. Not all Libertarians are anarco-capitalists.

Re:!change (0, Troll)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451246)

Here's the problem: before we can elect a libertarian to high political office, the Libertarian Party will have to find one amongst their number who is not insane.

And I don't mean "has weird political views" insane, I mean nose-picking, drooling, playing with their own feces insane.

Re:!change (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451322)

Let's just say that Ron Paul had been elected to office. Other than the fact that the US now had a completely nutty and out to lunch fanatic in office, unless a whole bunch of Libertarians got into Congress, I'd suggest that regardless of the Constitution of Congress, the Dems and Republicans would join hands to make Paul's four years in office so miserable and utterly wasted that he might as well have never run. At the end of the day, Congress holds the purse strings and the bulk of the legislative power, and even if you think welfare, environmental protections and fiat currency are all bad, is anybody under the illusion that the Oval Office could actually force the day. Heck, Obama can't even get the health care plan he wanted through and his own party controls both houses!

Re:!change (1, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451404)

Ron Paul wouldn't get into office without a large number of Libertarians joining him. You don't think that all of a sudden enough people are going to wake up and decide to pull the Libertarian lever for POTUS but not for Congress, do you?

Political movements are built from the ground up. Before we see a Libertarian President we'd see Libertarian town councilman, Libertarian State Legislators, maybe a Governor or two, Libertarian Congressman, etc, etc. The only point to third parties running a Presidential candidate is to draw attention to themselves. The real work is done at lower levels of office.

Re:!change (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451280)

Have you read the Constitution? Copyright and patents are Congress's domain. Having a Libertarian administration wouldn't fix the problem.

Re:!change (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450442)

I'd be inclined to doubt it. Even the most starry-eyed members of the uncritical Obama fans club don't have any real use for Biden or the Obama administration's general chumminess with Team Content.

Re:!change (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450564)

Then why'd they vote for them?

Oh yeah, "lessor of two evils" and all that. Who was it around here who first said "The lessor of two evils is still evil"?

Re:!change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30450636)

How do you rent one evil, let alone two?

Re:!change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30450680)

John McCain was backed by the CEO of the RIAA. If we go by slashtard logic wouldn't that automatically disqualify him?

Re:!change (1, Troll)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450708)

John McCain disqualified himself when he picked someone completely unqualified to serve as President to be his running mate.......

Re:!change (1)

Grimbleton (1034446) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450758)

Ah yes, a governor who did a lot for her state versus... a habitually non-present senator whose only prior experience was as a community adviser.

Hm yes, unqualified running mates.

Re:!change (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450856)

Ah yes, a governor who did a lot for her state versus

Whom couldn't even answer a question about the Bush doctrine. I'm not involved in government at any level and I still knew what the Bush doctrine was. Sorry but I'm just not willing to vote for someone who isn't smarter than I am. Besides, if she couldn't hack it against Katie Couric how's she gonna hack it against Vladimir Putin?

a habitually non-present senator whose only prior experience was as a community adviser.

What makes you think that I believe Mr. Obama was qualified?

Re:!change (2, Funny)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450998)

how's she gonna hack it against Vladimir Putin

Maybe she can drink him under the table.

Re:!change (2, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451256)

Ah yes, a governor who did a lot for her state

Citation please.

Re:!change (2, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451368)

Oh good grief. The only thing that did "it" for Alaska was obscenely high energy prices. You could have replaced Palin with Mr. Hanky and got the same effect.

Re:!change (1)

armanox (826486) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450762)

Because Mr. Obama was more qualified then Gov. Palin, right?

Re:!change (3, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450804)

Hooray, I've pissed the right-wing partisans for a change!

Answer me this: What makes you think that because I said Gov. Palin was unqualified that I think that Senator Obama was?

Re:!change (1)

Conchobair (1648793) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451056)

When you said John McCain DQ'd himself by picking a under qualified running mate. Logically Obama would also be DQ'd for being under qualified as well, unless you thought otherwise. So, unless you were uncommonly supporting a 3rd party canidate or no candidate, which should have been mentioned, you would be implying Obama was qualified. Care to clear it up once and for all?

Re:!change (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451248)

Logically I was replying to this [slashdot.org] post, which talked about McCain, and thus it doesn't seem to make much sense for you to draw inferences about Obama based upon my comment.

For the record, no, I don't think that a not-even-single-term-US-Senator with zero executive, zero foreign policy and zero military experience is qualified to be President. Obama's main qualification seems to be the fact that he can put together a good speech. Nine years ago he was a State Senator that nobody had ever heard of whom was denied entry to the Democratic Convention and couldn't even afford a hotel or the airline ticket back home. Now he's the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military on the planet. WTF?

Regarding Palin, I happen to think that she's gotten a raw deal in many respects -- the way she was driven out of the Governors office and the attacks on her family both come to mind -- but I still don't think she was remotely qualified to be a heartbeat away from the nuclear launch codes. She couldn't handle a damn interview with Katie Couric for heavens sake. You can complain all you want about the interview being rigged or whatnot but if she can't handle the American media how the fuck is she going to handle Putin or Ahmadinejad?

Re:!change (1)

drquoz (1199407) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450870)

Yes, of course he was. Or is this some sort of trick question?

Re:!change (2, Insightful)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450938)

Yes, of course he was.

  • Natural-born citizen.
  • Over 35 years old.
  • Lived in-country for at least 14 years.

Yep, he's qualified. Oh, and:

  • Elected.

;-)

Re:!change (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30450988)

Natural-born citizen.

Citation needed.

Re:!change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30451206)

Why'd you have to mention that? Now the birthers are sure to flood this article with their insanity... :(

Re:!change (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451042)

Yeah, he is smart enough to handle katie couric. Also he probably knows that Russia is not visible from Palin's front porch.

Vote Cthulhu! (2, Funny)

babblefrog (1013127) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451358)

Why settle for the lesser of two evils?

Re:!change (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450490)

Why post that when it's so much more fun to watch you knock down strawmen!

Re:!change (1)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450774)

Why bother to address any of his concerns (regardless of the slanted manner they're presented.) when you can just post logical fallacies. I'm sure for a certain subset of people, the OP is just putting words in their mouths, but there are going to be some people who tow the line on this and suggest that there's nothing wrong with this or attempt to downplay it. This is really just another straw man that detracts from any actual discussion of the topic and quickly degenerates into a flame war.

The partisan goons from all political parties or groups (Yes, even the small third parties.) are the reason governments keep getting away with this crap. They're too busy levying accusations of "Well your guy did it too and you didn't have a problem with it then." or the like, that anyone telling government to knock this shit off gets drown out in the crap-flood of idiocy flowing forth from the mouths of these partisan idiots.

Worse yet, these worthless gits are the ones shown on television all of the time. The news stations have become less about facts, information, or rational thoughts and more about becoming a political version of Jerry Springer. It's not just Fox news that's guilty of this either. The saddest bit is that we deserve every single thing we get, as We the People seem to keep voting for it.

Re:!change (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450558)

You'll find very few people here who ever worshiped the Obamassiah. It's no secret that the Dems are just as much in the pocket of the media companies as the Republicans.

!change nor the first time... (4, Informative)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450910)

This isn't surprising in the least. Less than two weeks ago they had a workshop for Federal employees on openness in government and it was closed to the public. [yahoo.com]

Don't forget that Obama promised to have debates on healthcare on C-Span. [74.125.155.132] (google cache)

I’m going to have all the negotiations around a big table,” Obama said. “We’ll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies — they’ll get a seat at the table, they just won’t be able to buy every chair. But what we’ll do is we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who are making arguments on behalf of drug companies or the insurance companies.

Then he goes on to have closed door meetings with drug companies and insurance companies. Not to mention that he promised to not support any health care bill that forced people to get healthcare.

You'll find very few people here who ever worshiped the Obamassiah. It's no secret that the Dems are just as much in the pocket of the media companies as the Republicans.

As a person who was continually modded down for saying there was (and will be) no difference between Obama and McCain before and during the election I find your statement very funny.

Re:!change nor the first time... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451074)

Of course there is a difference.

Dem: Less war, Less regulating morality, more bending over backwards for Big Media.

Repub: More war, More regulating morality, less bending over backwards for Big Media.

Not that Republicans are really war hungry, but they are in the pocket of arms manufacturers.

Re:!change nor the first time... (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451318)

Repub: More war, More regulating morality, less bending over backwards for Big Media.

Can you give any evidence of the last part of that claim?

Re:!change nor the first time... (0, Flamebait)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451324)

Dem: Less war, Less regulating morality, Less personal choice and liberty, more bending over backwards for Big Media.

Repub: More war, More regulating morality, More personal choice and liberty, less bending over backwards for Big Media.

Added one that you forgot.

Re:!change nor the first time... (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451430)

More personal choice and liberty?

Please.

Perhaps if you are church going conservative businessman.

Or if you mean the freedom to be crushed by the wealthy.

Re:!change nor the first time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30451434)

Yes, resisting gay, women's, and minority rights is "more personal choice and liberty".

Re:!change nor the first time... (2, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451242)

As a person who was continually modded down for saying there was (and will be) no difference between Obama and McCain before and during the election I find your statement very funny.

It's not about the candidates, for they are like puppets. It's about the monied interests who finance their campaigns and put them into office. That's where the real power is, and it's not up for a vote. It's more of a plutocracy. Whether it's Obama or McCain who won the election, either of them has a career in politics only because they know better than to piss off the people who had the clout to put them into office. Therefore, those people always have their interests represented in Washington. Every candidate from either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party is elected only because those interests have carefully vetted him/her and are convinced that he/she is not going to rock that boat.

The individual either understands this reality or chooses to believe in the fantasy that the popular vote for major-party candidates has the potential to change the status quo. That popular vote is the direct result of mass media, which in turn is the result of advertising dollars that the candidates receive from those monied interests. The only change permitted under this system is of the "becoming more so" variety. Using copyright law as an example, that's why it becomes more and more restrictive over time (becoming more of what it is) and it's why those restrictions are never reversed.

People who can't understand this and people who are in denial about the fundamental brokenness of this system are going to get upset when you criticize a particular candidate. They can't imagine anything outside of the "Democrat or Republican" duality, and that's the real (and terrible) triumph of our current system. To those people, any negative statement about Candidate A must be equivalent to a positive statement about Candidate B. Asking them to see the fallacy of that kind of thinking is also a request to confront all of their insecurities that revolve around an extreme sense that "something's not right here", a task for which they may lack courage. In the absence of such courage, it's much easier for them to mod you down or insult you. Unfortunately neither response is very surprising when you consider the source.

Re:!change (1)

internettoughguy (1478741) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450610)

tell us why this is "different".

It's not and it sucks, but on the other hand at least so far this administration hasn't started any wars.

touches wood

Re:!change (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450648)

but on the other hand at least so far this administration hasn't started any wars.

No, but their Secretary of State and a large number of their party currently in Congress did.......

Re:!change (1)

angelwolf71885 (1181671) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450816)

i will keep my money my guns and my freedom Obama you can keep the CHANGE

Re:!change (1)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450902)

You forgot "Love it or Leave it!" and my personal favorite "Ass Grass or Cash, Nobody Rides Free"!

What are you hauling these days?

Re:!change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30450912)

But it is different!!!
For example Dick Cheney is replaced by Joe Biden and "Big Oil" execs and lobbyists are replaced by "Entertainment" execs and lobbyists. Therefore the pictures will be different. For example I expect the current summit, being run by the "Entertainment" industry, will use much better CGI w.r.t. the farm animals in the photos that are being used to persuade the politicians.

Re:!change (2, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451040)

I can't wait to hear all of the partisans who rightfully complained about Dick Cheney's energy task force come out of the woodwork to tell us why this is "different".

Reasons why this is different:
1. Dick Cheney never put out a press release announcing there was a meeting
2. Dick Cheney never released any of the names of the people he or his Task Force met with
3. Most of the activities of the Task Force have never been/will never be disclosed by the government

Here's most of what we know [washingtonpost.com] about the Energy Task Force [washingtonpost.com] (two articles)

I find it distasteful that the press is getting kicked out, but none of this is happening in Cheney-esqe secrecy.
I'm going to save my outrage for something more substantial like the secret Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty negotiations.

Re:!change (1)

Stupid McStupidson (1660141) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451068)

So..........industry bribes the politicians in power? Don't they understand their money would be better spent bribing the officials who weren't elected, and don't hold power?

Re:!change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30451174)

Nothing funnier than a bunch of old farts trying to stop piracy LOL.

No need to wait, read story summary! (2, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451330)

I can't wait to hear all of the partisans who rightfully complained about Dick Cheney's energy task force come out of the woodwork to tell us why this is "different".

Your wish, it is granted:

Judging by the press accounts, the sort of intellectual property criminals they are interested in are large-scale DVD bootleggers, not individual downloaders.

Well thanks for clearing that up! This copyright summit would never harm you, citizen! It's utterly different than any that have come before because it only goes after lrge scale infringers, or so the spin goes! Ignore the fact Hollywood is attending and we know what they always want.

I'll bet if this were Bush's (or any Republican for that matter) copyright summit, we wouldn't see such a helpful sentence explaining how what these guys are doing is all for the good.

Sorry, but I didn't like large scale expansion of copyright under any administration no matter how much you try to handwave and explain Democrats are all OK in this regard.

oh joy. (1)

Hinhule (811436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450440)

yeah that organized crime commited by pirates is really bad for your nation.

I wonder how many deaths are attributed to copyright infringement each year to warrant a special government interest.

Re:oh joy. (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450534)

yeah that organized crime commited by pirates is really bad for your nation.

It is if your nation makes billions of dollars developing movies and music. Anyone find it interesting that we routinely run massive trade deficits with China but stand mute while their Government tacitly condones piracy on an industrialized scale? As much as I despise the mafia there are real people working in these industries. It's a safe assumption they don't want to work for free. Can't we find some balance on this issue somewhere between "some teenagers downloaded Britney Spears, lock 'em up!" and "information wants to be free"?

Re:oh joy. (3, Interesting)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450842)

yeah that organized crime commited by pirates is really bad for your nation.

It is if your nation makes billions of dollars developing movies and music. Anyone find it interesting that we routinely run massive trade deficits with China but stand mute while their Government tacitly condones piracy on an industrialized scale? As much as I despise the mafia there are real people working in these industries. It's a safe assumption they don't want to work for free. Can't we find some balance on this issue somewhere between "some teenagers downloaded Britney Spears, lock 'em up!" and "information wants to be free"?

We will have that balance the moment our social and governmental attitude towards the media companies consists of: "adapt your business model to the 21st century and create an online product that people want to buy, or go bankrupt. Your choice." Until then we're trying to make sure that buggy whip manufacturers still have jobs after the advent of the automobile.

Re:oh joy. (0, Redundant)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450922)

There's already online versions of music. You can buy tracks for $0.99 from Amazon with no DRM whatsoever. They come in a nearly universal (mp3) format that is easily converted to other formats and which can run on just about anything. For slightly more you can purchase the same product from the Apple Store. Yet people continue to pirate music in fairly significant numbers. Could it just be that free > pay?

Movies are trickier. Not aware of any online movie distribution systems that aren't laced with DRM or locked into a specific vendors product. But if the music example is telling it wouldn't matter if there were -- people would keep right on pirating them.

The industry did miss the boat with online distribution but I can't be the only one that thinks that excuse is wearing thin as a justification for piracy.

Re:oh joy. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451112)

I bet if the cost went down that would change.

The reality is the general public seems to not value music at $0.99 cents a song. For me it would have to either be cheaper or not be lossy. I will continue to buy cds and rip them.

Re:oh joy. (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451286)

The reality is that millions of people are consumers of digital music from iTunes and Amazon. Many people seem to have decided that $0.99 is a fair price for the product they are receiving.

Now I'm personally with you -- I would rather buy a used CD and get a lossless format -- but I don't think that gives me justification to start downloading lossy formats for free.

Re:oh joy. (1)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451312)

There's already online versions of music. You can buy tracks for $0.99 from Amazon with no DRM whatsoever. They come in a nearly universal (mp3) format that is easily converted to other formats and which can run on just about anything. For slightly more you can purchase the same product from the Apple Store. Yet people continue to pirate music in fairly significant numbers. Could it just be that free > pay?

Movies are trickier. Not aware of any online movie distribution systems that aren't laced with DRM or locked into a specific vendors product. But if the music example is telling it wouldn't matter if there were -- people would keep right on pirating them.

The industry did miss the boat with online distribution but I can't be the only one that thinks that excuse is wearing thin as a justification for piracy.

The industry also earned itself a great deal of ill will, which definitely has a non-zero contribution towards piracy. Lots of people who would not pirate from a more respectable organization have no qualms about doing it to a cartel that was willing to subject minor children to interrogation and various other legal proceedings as part of an intimidation campaign. Right or wrong.

Also note, I said an online product that people want to buy. That may or may not mean buying songs and albums. It may also mean a subscription where you can access a certain amount of music for a flat monthly fee. It could mean some innovation we have not yet thought of. What that consists of is the problem of the media companies.

But really, we have some bad priorities. It would be better for all record companies to go bankrupt than to have our legal system compromised in such a wholesale fasion by some narrow interests that don't represent most Americans.

Re:oh joy. (1)

Reason58 (775044) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450854)

If only there was some sort of equilibrium. A "balancing point" if you will between the perceived value to the consumer and the price of a good or service. The only way to fix this is with more laws! Congress get on this fast!

Re:oh joy. (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450880)

Anyone find it interesting that we routinely run massive trade deficits with China but stand mute while their Government tacitly condones piracy on an industrialized scale?

I would, if it were true. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE50P5XZ20090126 [reuters.com]

Re:oh joy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30450914)

Can't we find some balance on this issue somewhere between "some teenagers downloaded Britney Spears, lock 'em up!" and "information wants to be free"?

Sure. But they started it. Until DRM is gone, piracy is the only way to get certain things. So until they choose otherwise, piracy needs to be protected. Drop the DRM, sell me video files that just work, and not only will I no longer be downloading, but I won't be seeding either.

Re:oh joy. (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451122)

Good point.

It's their custom crafted laws that make my use of the 1000 or so DVDs I have bought from them something that can be construed as a crime.

You would think that they would want it to be easier to buy than it is to "steal". Yet they soldier on with their self-destructive artistic megalomania. Most consumers are too lazy to use BitTorrent. If you lead them by the nose to a payware option they will use it. iTunes should be ample demonstration of this.

The longer the "void" remains unfilled, the more likely it is that people in general will get comfortable with BitTorrent or it's replacement.

Except most piracy is by their contractors (1)

tlambert (566799) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451370)

Except most piracy is by their own manufacturing contractors in other countries running a so-called "Third Shift", also known as a "Midnight Shift" or a "Ghost Shift" on the same production lines with the same equipment and workers who were used for the legitimate production of authorized copies. If they kept their manufacturing in their own political jurisdiction, they could expect some enforcement by the politicians they've bought; they don't, and so they have to go to the politicians they own and plead with them to talk to the politicians they don't own.

"He that lieth down with Dogs, shall rise up with Fleas."
                                        - Benjamin Franklin

-- Terry

Re:oh joy. (1)

dslbrian (318993) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451096)

Actually I take this in a completely different context. For Congress and the White House to talk about the ails of piracy is a situation so loaded with irony it's almost painful. It's like Congress holding a summit on the ails of substance abuse and extramarital affairs.

If anything, Congress and the White House would school the MPAA and RIAA on how to best extract money from future generations (of course unfounded taxation to support a huge freaking bureaucracy isn't piracy - why that's just your gov't at work).

Hurrah! (1)

foldingstock (945985) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450448)

Yeah, this will work. Money well spent gentlemen.

I'm really not surprised. (1)

Quantos (1327889) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450486)

I'm sure the industry has probably made sizable contributions on the political front, exactly for this reason. Judging from the business practices in the past it sure won't stop anytime soon. It makes 'Payola' seem somewhat harmless. Of course that's just my $ 0.02.

Well (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450498)

I guess the EFF's and other consumer groups' invites must have gotten lost in the mail.

Re:Well (2, Interesting)

yincrash (854885) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451032)

tbh, it'd be nice if even creator rights advocates were there at least. mpaa and riaa do not truly have the content creators best interests at heart

And I thought... (1, Flamebait)

rainer_d (115765) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450502)

...they were going to discuss about the problem with "real" piracy.
If anything, this should encourage the pirates operating in the Arabian sea near Somalia: unless they start bootlegging songs and movies, they should be relatively save and Uncle Sam will not go after them.
At least not in a big, coordinated way.
In essence, they, the ship-wrecking, people-killing pirates are a mere nuisance, while copyright-violating pirates mean the end of civilization is near.

Or maybe it's just another episode of "Politicians, lobbyist and the low-hanging fruit - how I learned to ignore the big problems while creating and appearing to solve small and irrelevant ones myself".

Re:And I thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30450608)

What do you think really caused the global economic crisis?

People downloading MP3s.

Re:And I thought... (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451436)

In all honesty? DVD bootlegs are probably funneling more money to the same types of people who rob and murder for a living than what happens in Somalia. It's just a gentler hand and it's mostly socially acceptable.

Not to mention that the US government has a much wider range of jurisdiction and tools to work with when it comes down to bootlegged goods that sell on our lands.

Plus, who says we only have to deal with one problem at a time? The issues off the African coast will not be solved by one nation. Washington is not the place to start the kinds of discussions that will really help the situation.

As a firm believer in tooth fairy and santa clause (2)

fregare (923563) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450532)

Yes I trust our goberment in protecting us from ourselves. They have our best interests at heart. They really do.

wtf?!? (1)

Weezul (52464) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450566)

Hollywood has considered redirecting any significant effort towards people who actually press pirate DVD instead of their own fans? Seriously?

Oh! I see, they want congress to pay for it, they'll keep using their own lawyers on their fans.

It's obviously good if these sorts of large scale industrial pirates are sued for copyright infringement. I'd strongly support a fund that aided small publishers when going up against pirate publishers, especially the largest pirates that are members of the RIAA and MPAA. *But* I simply don't believe these large guys need $30 million in aid for tracking down the large scale pirates.

If anything, the RIAA members should have all their copyrights revoked for abuse, and rights should be restored to the people who created the original works, bypassing the old "work for hire" provisions that Hollywood snuck in.

Makes nominal strategic sense... (4, Interesting)

nebaz (453974) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450586)

As much as I hate the idea that the Federal Government is in the interest of helping the RIAA, it seems that "intellectual property" is just about the only thing left that our country exports. I can understand thinking that it should be a national economic priority if you think in those terms. That doesn't address the reality of the "value" of said property, or its constitutional justification, however.

Re:Makes nominal strategic sense... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30450714)

Don't forget, America also exports war.

Ummmm (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451022)

Except for the fact that Hollywood is a very minor part of the US economy compared to other areas. Intel alone has more revenue than everything Hollywood does. I'd buy this argument if the US economy was relying on Hollywood, but that just isn't the case. The biggest sector of the US economy is still manufacturing (and in fact the US still has the biggest manufacturing sector in the world). When you look at it, the movie and music industry just aren't that big a deal.

So this really isn't based off of need, this isn't a "the government protects this or the economy sinks." This is a case of Hollywood spending lots of money to more or less buy off politicians.

Information just wants to be free (5, Insightful)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450650)

As we said early on, and have continually been proven right, Information just wants to be free.

And no amount of trying to stop that will end up working in the end.

Restore copyright to 17 years renewable only by the author of the work, remove patent protection for software, and let's get back to creating and away from lining CEO's pockets.

Re:Information just wants to be free (1)

fregare (923563) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450720)

This will surely happen 1000 years after our sun super novas.

Re:Information just wants to be free (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450942)

I seriously doubt the brief time span that copyrights have been extended is more than just a blip along the timeline from the dawn of time until when our sun novas. Besides, most civilizations on our planet have not lasted even 1000 years, so it's unlikely your premise is even remotely correct.

All things pass. Even the farce which is IP.

Re:Information just wants to be free (0, Flamebait)

fregare (923563) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451406)

I was being humorous in my own skewed way. The point I was making is that it won't happen in our lifetimes. Right now our government is basically owned by Corps through lobbyists. Nothing will change until we have a 3rd party. I just don't see a 3rd party occurring anytime soon. For example, I ran into OBAMA supporters who supported "change" during the election. We got "change" all right. I knew it was a farce from the get go. And unfortunately I was right. Have a nice day.

Re:Information just wants to be free (0, Offtopic)

east coast (590680) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451392)

Kinda off topic but... The sun will never super nova unless it gains some serious mass. And the earth is going to be uninhabitable to life as we know it for a few billion years before the sun effectively burns itself out into a cinder of iron and carbon.

Re:Information just wants to be free (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451178)

Restore copyright to 17 years renewable only by the author of the work, remove patent protection for software, and let's get back to creating and away from lining CEO's pockets.

Copyright was never 17 years.
It started out as 14 years + a 14 year renewal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#History [wikipedia.org]

Anyways, the USA can't make any meaningful changes to copyright law without going through the World Trade Organization.

Re:Information just wants to be free (1)

chucklebutte (921447) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451220)

^ what this guy said.

Wrong way round (5, Insightful)

newhoggy (672061) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450742)

"Hollywood once again demonstrates its close ties to Washington DC"

should be

"Washington DC once again demonstrates its close ties to Hollywood"

It's your political system that's broken - not Hollywood.

Re:Wrong way round (5, Funny)

bananaquackmoo (1204116) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450798)

What... can't it be both?

Re:Wrong way round (1)

Rayonic (462789) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451044)

"Hollywood once again demonstrates its close ties to Washington DC"

"Washington DC once again demonstrates its close ties to Hollywood"

Ha, sounds like the Republican vs. Democratic versions of the relationship. Kind of a lame "In Soviet Russia..." style joke.

Full text (4, Insightful)

oDDmON oUT (231200) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450780)

"are interested in are large-scale DVD bootleggers, not individual downloaders [for now]. "

Re:Full text (3, Insightful)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451002)

"are interested in are large-scale DVD bootleggers, not individual downloaders [for now]. "

You can scratch the "for now" even. Any laws that start in meetings like this aren't going to be "If you bootleg DVDs, you get punishment X per bootleg disk." they're going to be "If you infringe copyright, you get punishment X per infringement." where "infringe" can be taken to mean "bootleg, copy for a friend, download, upload, format shift for yourself, write an unfavorable online review of" and so on, however much the lawyers can twist the word and destroy the spirit in a court of law.

See also: Laws against pedophiles and child pornographers that somehow apply to pairs of consenting teenagers and individual teenagers photographing themselves, laws against racketeers that apply to people not running a racket, laws against drug dealers that apply to people with a lot of cash, etc. etc. etc.

Re:Full text (1)

zullnero (833754) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451270)

With the numbers on the table, the only thing that 30 million could be effectively used for is ramping up police departments and the FBI for cracking down on large scale bootleg operations. Paranoia is one thing, but the numbers right there don't back that paranoia up. If the government were "getting serious" about illegal downloading, we're talking somewhere close to a billion to make a serious difference, along with massive regulations placed on ISPs and the major carriers where that cash would be used to enforce those regulations. They'd probably also have to meddle with the Fourth Amendment, because getting carriers to rat out potential terrorists is one thing, but getting the carriers to rat out a single mother who downloaded "Soul Plane" through bittorrent is another thing entirely. Meddling with the Fourth isn't going to be something that can be done at a whim. The last administration danced around it every way they could, and really, they got away with it because no one bothered to mount a serious case against them (for purely political reasons, of course) even though everyone knows full well they abused their power and circumvented the Constitution.

So put away the tinfoil hat for a minute and use some common sense. Large scale bootleggers are criminals, plain and simple. They make it tougher for you to buy stuff legitimately, and they hurt a company's bottom line. Targeting individual downloaders wouldn't really be ultimately worth the government's time to properly enforce. The RIAA and CRAA and MPAA can cry about it all they want, but the floodgates of the Internet are open, and to close those gates would directly hurt a lot of other major corporate forces that would put up a heck of a big fight as well. The government can really only pay lip service and throw cash at fighting things that can give back real deliverable results, and fighting individual downloading can't do that.

And as usual...... (1)

netruner (588721) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450782)

Who is representing the consumer's interests? Does any of these people have a grasp on topics such as "fair use" - you know, that thing that the DMCA wasn't supposed to hinder (DMCA sec 1201(C)(1)). Well, I guess some do, but they're the ones trying to destroy that concept.

Reference: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#1201 [copyright.gov]

Re:And as usual...... (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450936)

The same people who are representing our interests on ACTA.

Unfortunately... (5, Insightful)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450812)

" the sort of intellectual property criminals they are interested in are large-scale DVD bootleggers, not individual downloaders"

The law won't discriminate. Neither will the lawyers.

If they write it, someone will sue.

Fair and Balanced (2, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450882)

Hollywood once again demonstrates its close ties to Washington DC, regardless of who is in power

Industries that generate significant export dollars are guaranteed a hearing in Washington.

Bonus points for cultural exports.

If you are a Brit, ask yourself what the return has been on Sherlock Holmes, The Beatles, James Bond, Harry Potter.

Bonus points for clean industries. Bonus points for tech. Bonus points for skilled labor and labor-intensive industries.

Re:Fair and Balanced (2, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451058)

Industries that donate significant campaign dollars are guaranteed a hearing in Washington.

Fixed that for you :)

(Snarkiness aside I do get and agree with your main point)

Joe Biden? (2, Funny)

NullProg (70833) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450968)

Vice President Joe Biden will be leading the summit to discuss organized cooperation between the federal government and the entertainment industry on all matters of piracy.

You mean this Joe Biden: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=joe+biden+plagiarism&aq=0&oq=joe+biden+pl&aqi=g10 [google.com]

Maybe someone will ask Joe the difference between bits in a track and the letters in a book.

Enjoy,

Now we know (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30450996)

where to drop a bomb to rid us of all of the MPAA Assholes in one shot. It gets the RIAA as well. Sweet.

http://SHIP.BayWords.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30451082)

BIDEN:

There is a major difference between issues of theft and counterfeit in the commerce sector versus legitimate use in an educational and personal (non-economic) environment.

YOU STILL FAIL TO MAKE CLEAR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE CONSTRAINTS, CHOOSING TO SUPPORT ORGANIZED CRIME OVER THE MAJORITY OF THE WORLDS' POPULATION.

I strongly suggest you fix your policy and approach immediately, this is not the first time I've had to call you directly.

http://SHIP.BayWords.com

jews (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30451106)

get back to the oven kikes

privacy summit? (1)

CSEMike (1046410) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451136)

perhaps someday privacy will be a concern, in addition to piracy. Until then, use OneSwarm [washington.edu] .

Though Entertainment Media is Commerce Only... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30451194)

Biden:

There is a major difference between issues of theft and counterfeit in the commerce sector versus legitimate use in an educational and personal (non-economic) environment.

YOU STILL FAIL TO MAKE CLEAR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE CONSTRAINTS, CHOOSING TO SUPPORT ORGANIZED CRIME OVER THE MAJORITY OF THE WORLDS' POPULATION.

I strongly suggest you fix your policy and approach immediately, this is not the first time I've had to call you directly.

And check your pegged budgets: http://ship.baywords.com

Piracy at sea (1)

flandar (639569) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451274)

Was I the only one who hoped this was an effort to address the real issue of pirates off the coast of Somalia? Millions of dollars in ransoms being funneled into black markets and mafias. That sounds to me like a bigger problem for our security. Somehow that seems like a more important issue for the Federal Government to deal with. You know, provide for the common defense and all. My mistake, its just a power grab by big corporations.

Re:Piracy at sea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30451314)

Yeah, because funds from bootlegged DVDs don't go to black markets and mafias.

Should start with huge commercial organizations (2, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451308)

CRIA is a huge violator. I suspect the RIAA is a similar violator. These organizations should be made to pay in full.

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/87347/can-cria-recover-from-the-largest-copyright-infringment-case-in-canadian-history/

---
Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) was sued for $6 billion (not $60 billion as initially reported) for commercial copyright infringement. The case was only filed and already, it is seemingly beyond the point of damage control for CRIA. The question is, can CRIA recover from what may be the biggest blunder in its history?
--

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...