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!

Entertainment Industry's Dystopia of the Future

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the truth-is-often-stranger dept.

Government 394

renek writes "If you think the RIAA/MPAA's tactics have been outlandish, laughable, and disconcerting in the past, you haven't seen anything yet. From government-mandated spyware that deletes infringing content to border searches of media players, this reads like an Orwellian nightmare. Given the US government's willingness to bend over for Big Media it wouldn't be terribly surprising to see how far this goes and how under the radar it stays."

cancel ×

394 comments

woohoo.. payday (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31859272)

I will gladly run their spyware on my PC once they tell me where to send the invoice.
My current hourly rate to manage their software is $850 per hour.
My current rates for computer time is $245 per hour per processor.
I hope their spyware runs under Ubuntu.

I'll also start to carry about a few dozen old 128Mb-2Gb flash drives whenever I
travel. They are all filled with multiple TrueCrypt volumes full of random data which
is re-encrypted dozens of times. I'll gladly hand over all the decryption keys but
it'll still cost them time and money to check.

Re:woohoo.. payday (3, Funny)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859334)

Gotta love Canonical... apt-get install dystopian-copyright-protection

Re:woohoo.. payday (3, Insightful)

bell.colin (1720616) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859896)

That's "sudo apt-get install dystopian-copyright-protection" dumbass.

Also, "Couldn't find package dystopian-copyright-protection"

Re:woohoo.. payday (4, Insightful)

svtdragon (917476) | more than 4 years ago | (#31860084)

Package dystopian-copyright-protection is a virtual package provided by:
obscene-censorship
government-intrusion
corporate-greed
ubisoft-games
sony-rootkit-drm
You should explicitly select one to install.
E: Package dystopian-copyright-protection has no installation candidate

Re:woohoo.. payday (0, Redundant)

svtdragon (917476) | more than 4 years ago | (#31860102)

Package dystopian-copyright-protection is a virtual package provided by:
mafiaa
obscene-censorship
government-intrusion
corporate-greed
ubisoft-games
sony-rootkit-drm
You should explicitly select one to install.
E: Package dystopian-copyright-protection has no installation candidate

It's simple. (5, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859276)

You can't possibly protect content without directly affecting the people who play by the rules. Things like the Patriot Act suffer from the same problem.

Re:It's simple. (0, Redundant)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859578)

That didn't seem to create any problems making Patriot Act.

Re:It's simple. (1)

reSonans (732669) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859724)

You can't possibly protect content without directly affecting the people who play by the rules.

Indeed. Blinded by greed, the RIAA/MPAA keep tightening the noose without realizing that it isn't on the customer's neck, but on theirs.

Don't forget... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31859280)

That we citizen elect the politicians. We the people have the vote and therefore the power to change...

Re:Don't forget... (4, Insightful)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859350)

That we citizen elect the politicians.

Yes, but we don't select them.

To be unnecessarily extreme, we can essentially pick between Hitler and Pol Pot. While it's a tough choice, it's not a choice I want to make.

Re:Don't forget... (2, Insightful)

a whoabot (706122) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859566)

I thought you could write whomever you wanted onto your ballot?

Or is your objection that voting for third-party candidates is useless because only Republican or Democratic candidates get enough votes to win and so your vote is only useful in helping one of those two to win?

I've seen this objection before. I'm pretty sure what makes it that Republican or Democratic candidates are the ones that get enough votes is because so many people choose to vote for them. So it seems your objection amounts to something like: "The majority chooses who wins, and I'm not part of the majority!"

Re:Don't forget... (4, Insightful)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859774)

I thought you could write whomever you wanted onto your ballot?

Nope. They have to be pre-approved [google.com] (pdf in Google Docs) or they just plain won't be counted.

"The majority chooses who wins, and I'm not part of the majority!"

No, my objection is that the minority choses who the majority gets to pick. The US version of an "election" is a joke relative to modern systems [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Don't forget... (1)

a whoabot (706122) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859974)

Okay, sure, you're right, they have to be pre-approved (I'm Canadian so I feel alright being ignorant of the subtleties of the US electoral college). But, what barriers are there for someone being pre-approved? Has anyone who has filled out that form (or its equivalent in other contexts) with the correct information ever been denied pre-approval? It doesn't seem like a requirement to fill-out a form with basic contact information places much of a limit on whom you can vote for.

Re:Don't forget... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31860076)

Indeed, I'm always irritated about first past the post here in Canada as well. The problem is that the same people who can reform it are the ones currently benefiting from a first past the post style voting system now, so they have a vested interest in the status quo.

Re:Don't forget... (4, Interesting)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859894)

I've seen this objection before. I'm pretty sure what makes it that Republican or Democratic candidates are the ones that get enough votes is because so many people choose to vote for them

The Republican and Democrat candidates are the only ones who really get presented to the public. Every election I can remember that got covered on major media is always red vs. blue, every single one. Some early debates might include several candidates, but once things start getting close to election day the debates are also red vs. blue.

In the most recent presidential election there were five parties with ballot access in enough states to win the required 270 electoral votes. So how come the televised debates only show two of those parties to the public? Who has the authority to decide which parties get to debate and which don't? Why aren't the Constitutional, Green, and Libertarian parties allowed to debate in prime time on major networks? The reason most people vote for red or blue is because those are the only choices they think they have, they never even have a chance to hear the other voices to decide if those fit their views better than The Two Who Are More Alike Than They Are Different. How come Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, and Bob Barr weren't allowed to debate in prime time with the others? Even with no coverage those 4 candidates together got over 1.6 million votes. Imagine how many they would have got if every debate included all 6 candidates.

Re:Don't forget... (1)

ATestR (1060586) | more than 4 years ago | (#31860060)

The Libertarians occasionally get in on debates. They pulled down 3-4% in the last Presidential elections, and are the only 3rd party with a presence in all 50 States. The problem is, they (and the other 3rd parties) have never garnered enough of the vote in anything be (very) local elections to be take seriously.

Re:Don't forget... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31860074)

Why aren't the Constitutional, Green, and Libertarian parties allowed to debate in prime time on major networks?

If the networks are the ones running the debate then they get to pick and choose who to let on the stage. Since the networks know that most American's don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, they don't want to complicate the viewer's little mind with anything past the binary, R versus D paradigm. Why talk with 3rd party people when you can run an ad. Back after this, now a word from our sponsor: McDonalds. I'm lovin' it!

Re:Don't forget... (1)

panoptical2 (1344319) | more than 4 years ago | (#31860008)

Giving up mod abilities to respond to this...

Yes, of course you can write in whomever you want to on the ballot. However, are you going to spend the millions to billions of dollars it takes to market your write-in candidate so that others will know to write him/her in too? What happens if they even misspell the name while writing it in? What if they can't write?

Or, as another option, are you going to go to your state legislature and register your own candidate so that his/her name gets printed on the ballot? Look at what happened to Colbert when he tried to run in South Carolina. He was shot down because "he could never win," which was more or less the truth, but it prevented him from running in the first place.

Elections are all about marketing yourself to the general public, regardless of how stupid or idiotic the public is. I'll use the 1896 presidential election as an example. William Jennings Bryan, part of the populist party, tried to market himself without spending too much money (he didn't have that much to spend) by going around the country giving stump speeches and parading through towns. McKinley, his opponent, who had much more money than Bryan did, spent that money on newspaper advertisements and also paid people to spread the word about voting for McKinley. Guess who won?

All I'm really saying is that you're being overly idealistic, and you're only likely to keep punching your fist into a brick wall with that attitude in regard to politics.

Re:Don't forget... (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859602)

The only difference between the Reps and Dems are the bones they throw to us little people to get elected and then when in office, they serve their true masters.

Re:Don't forget... (3, Insightful)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859756)

That we citizen elect the politicians.

Yes, but we don't select them.

To be unnecessarily extreme, we can essentially pick between Hitler and Pol Pot.

Or Kang and Kodos! (Simpsons did it!)

Re:Don't forget... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31859940)

That we citizen elect the politicians.

Yes, but we don't select them.

To be unnecessarily extreme, we can essentially pick between Hitler and Pol Pot.

Or Kang and Kodos! (Simpsons did it!)

If you don't like choices you are offered form your own party (this is how the "Pirate Party" got started in Europe)or stand as an independent, that's how democracy is supposed to work.

Re:Don't forget... (2, Funny)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859784)

I always say that choosing between democrat and republican is like deciding between Mephistopheles and Cthulhu. Its pretty damn hard to determine the lesser of two evils when both cause a buffer overflow error on the evil register.

Re:Don't forget... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31859830)

0->Godwin in 7 posts... that's impressive.

Re:Don't forget... (2, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859872)

That we citizen elect the politicians.

Yes, but we don't select them.

To be unnecessarily extreme, we can essentially pick between Hitler and Pol Pot. While it's a tough choice, it's not a choice I want to make.

Yes, that is unnecessarily extreme. Why is everything in politics like this these days? Aren't there shades of wrongness? I mean really, we have a choice between politicians who have authorized the killing of millions of people? How about, 'we can essentially pick between Franco and Peron?' Both pretty bad, and fascist corporatists like many of today's politicians, but, you know, they didn't murder millions of people.

Rational politics requires rational citizens. Throwing around names like Hitler and Pol Pot does nothing to increase the rationality of voters. It does not motivate people to go out and vote or work for change. After all, what can one guy do against Hitler? Comparing our politicians to Hitler or Pol Pot is more than unnecessarily extreme. It is divisive and encourage irrationality, fear, and hopelessness. It also lumps all politicians in all races together into the 'utter monster' category, thus blurring the real distinctions that do exist. I mean, you can choose between the corporatist that wants to give you health care, or the corporatist that wants to regulate who you fuck. That's actually a pretty big distinction.

Not all politicians are evil monsters. And amongst the evil monsters, there are levels of evil. It is possible to pick the lesser of two evils if you don't lump all politicians together into the same evil madman stew.

Re:Don't forget... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31859952)

Works better if your audience at least have heard the names you're using before.

Re:Don't forget... (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859978)

the corporatist that wants to give you health care

Speaking of encouraging irrationality...

Companies need protection too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31859874)

If companies gives jobs to people - and companies pay a lot of the taxes that help to keep US going, then the govt has to help the companies. Just cos you elect someone doesnt mean they walk away from protecting private interests of companies - which are similar to the police saving you from the random guy walking in and taking your bike with him.

If McDonalds is protected against some guy grabbing two sandwiches and walking out - the same is required for the record companies. Just because you, or even a majority of the population thinks it should not have to pay online, does not mean the companies should agree with you. There are lots of places where you get freebie music, software and pictures. Go use them.

Slashdotters regularly seem to think that just 'cos the marginal cost of distributing online is low - everything should be free. Remember - the marginal cost of distributing software is also free, and yet we expect everyone to pay for a copy of Oracle DB or whatever software you build for whomever.

I know that my firm regularly lobbies against software piracy in China and India - and am glad they do it. It saves my job - and if you dont wanna pay - you can always use some free software!!

Re:Companies need protection too! (4, Insightful)

SCPRedMage (838040) | more than 4 years ago | (#31860112)

You seem to be confusing "upset with big media controlling the law" with "pirate everything under the sun". Personally, I believe in financially supporting my entertainment, but I'm still sick of the US government bending over backwards for big media by creating more and more over-restrictive IP laws. Copyright law was originally created to give authors a TEMPORARY monopoly on the rights to their works, in exchange for their works eventually entering the public domain. The fact that copyright law has, at the behest of big media, been extended from the original maximum of 28 years (assuming the author was alive to renew it after the first 14 years) to author's life plus 70 years means that once the work DOES enter public domain, it's completely irrelevant and forgotten by modern society.

Bottom line: copyright law was created to benefit SOCIETY, not big media, and we have every right to be upset with them removing any value we receive from it.

Re:Don't forget... (1)

ATestR (1060586) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859988)

The problem is that you choose not to participate in the election process during the times where the parties are selecting the candidates. Both parties hold primary elections of some sort in each County and State to determine who their candidate for office is. Depending on how many people of your preferred party wish to participate in this process, you can participate, at least at the precinct level.

I decided to participate this year (for the first time ever), and changed my voter registration from Independent to Republican (I'm still independent of thought, but I really want to vote against O). I've participated in a Precinct and County meeting, and because of the low member turnout, expect to even go to the State primary, which happens to be within easy driving distance from home. I am certain I won't go beyond this... first because I'd have to travel some inordinate distance to participate, and second because there are LOT of people involved at the State level.

Is this a lot of fun? I'd say it was at least interesting... although I'm 52 now, and I'm certain that 20 years ago I would have lost interest quickly. I must admin that I made it to the site of the State Republican convention last year (although only as a vender at the Fair Tax [fairtax.org] table), but from what I saw and heard, a State convention can be fun, tedious, and frustrating. The County level convention that I attended this year was interesting, although the only voting involved were Straw Poles [wikipedia.org] for State and local candidates. I did get to see Roberts Rules of Order [wikipedia.org] in action.

All this aside, I encourage everyone to at least learn something about the system, even if you don't want to jump in and participate. If you do get involved, then you will at least have been involved in choosing one of the candidates... even if you don't like the result. If you don't take part, then you don't have room to complain.

Re:Don't forget... (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859948)

Citizens won't fight very hard for freedom to use shit pop-culture content.

If their rights over crap are restricted, they will find some other way to be amused.

THAT is why there isn't more momentum against media industry associations. So what if content producers make it difficult to exercise fair use of their shit? It's still shit, and even those who crave shit don't crave it enough to spend the effort to fight for it.

Bending over? (2, Insightful)

gnarlyhotep (872433) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859288)

Sure, congress bends over when it comes to passing favorable copyright laws, but that's a long way from acting as enforcers of private property rights, which the *AAs seem to be indicating here. When it the feds have to pay their own money, you'll see far less bending over going on.

Disclosure (5, Funny)

Heed00 (1473203) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859304)

Customs authorities should be encouraged to do more to educate the traveling public and entrants into the United States about these issues. In particular, points of entry into the United States are underused venues for educating the public about the threat to our economy (and to public safety) posed by counterfeit and pirate products.
Customs forms should be amended to require the disclosure of pirate or counterfeit items being brought into the United States.

[x] One eye patch.
[x] One peg leg.

Re:Disclosure (2, Funny)

carrolljim (412715) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859814)

[x] One parrot
[x] One keg of grog (duty free)
[x] Marks the spot

Market balancing itself (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859310)

Sooner or later when things get ridiculous the market with solve the problem. Sites like Jamendo already exist for freely sharing music. There is impulse for distributing games DRM free and is making a profit at it.

These old dinosaurs have a lot of power but it will soon evaporate once the world has moved on without them. There is a long line of new businesses that do "get it" which can replace them.

Re:Market balancing itself (3, Insightful)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859506)

Trouble is, cartels tend to work outside of the free market...

Re:Market balancing itself (1)

brit74 (831798) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859554)

Isn't Impulse made by the same company (Stardock) who's putting together "Goo" - which is a DRM system? http://www.joystiq.com/2009/03/26/stardock-introduces-flexible-drm-solution-goo/ [joystiq.com] While Stardock has generally gone without DRM for their past games, I don't think Impulse is necessarily a DRM-free system. It's probably more of a "here's a DRM system called 'goo' that's available for everyone who wants to use Impulse" kind of a system. My guess is that "Goo" is a low-level DRM system, not a "you must be connected to the internet" or rootkit-based system.

Re:Market balancing itself (2, Insightful)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859574)

These old dinosaurs have a lot of power but it will soon evaporate once the world has moved on without them.

And if they successfully legislate their survival?

Re:Market balancing itself (5, Insightful)

Troggie87 (1579051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859676)

This probably isn't true. The point of the article is that the entertainment industry is trying to push obscene measures to stop "piracy." While in a normal market situation people would just stop supporting these companies and go to a competitor, such a scenario is unlikely to play out since there are no real competitors besides companies that will probably be squelched as illegal.

Think of it this way: would the automobile ever have taken off if the buggy industry owned and legally controlled all materials and technology related to the making of wheels? Sure the buggy makers could adopt the new automotive technology, and it would be better for the consumer if they did, but there is no immediate incentive for them to do so.

The music industry as a whole controls the vast majority of music, and are pushing laws to crush emerging technologies that might obsolete their main revenue source. There is no reason for them to switch and take advantage of these new technologies, because they don't have to. The average consumer of entertainment just doesn't have the self control to stop listening to songs or watching films for an unknown amount of time just to put pressure on the industry, and groups like the RIAA know this. Thus, they have every incentive to try and legislate the problem away, as the market has no way to correct. Only if their grip on copyright is loosened, or some form of piracy allowed to flourish, is there any pressure to adapt to changing realities in the world.

Re:Market balancing itself (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859848)

and are pushing laws to crush emerging technologies that might obsolete their main revenue source.

Maybe I missed it in the article but how so in the context of a competitor that doesn't infringe on their copyright? They're trying to impose harsh restrictions on their copyright but how does it effect consumers of competitors such as Jamendo?

They can really only push so far before people get fed up and just go elsewhere even if there isn't as much content available. When that happens they won't be able to do anything without breaking laws.

Re:Market balancing itself (1)

Weezul (52464) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859796)

Umm. Are you an American? They've been almost winning every legislative battle inside the U.S. If the world moves on, but American legislators block it, then the world will be moving on without America. I've watched many American TV shows on Chinese video sharing sites, usually via surfthechannel, which bods ill for America's future.

Americans who "get it" really must support the pirate parties in Europe. Europe has some real chance for finding a western model for relaxation of intellectual property, one the U.S. could adopt later, and then catch back up. We're kinda fucked though if China gains technological dominance though weak copyright rules.

Re:Market balancing itself (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859986)

We're kinda fucked though if China gains technological dominance though weak copyright rules.

Then we already fucked because China doesn't care about copyrights & our stupid ass CEOs are basically giving them the technology to undercut us with.

Re:Market balancing itself (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 4 years ago | (#31860042)

My point isn't about piracy and where people download content. It is that people will purchase other media from new companies that has less restrictions imposed on them.

Re:Market balancing itself (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859936)

Free Market this, free market that. Two things. One, there is no such thing as a free market. Two, the last thing the "free market" solved was Soviet Russia.

wish list (0, Troll)

vxice (1690200) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859336)

the article notes that what is being talked about is a wish list submitted and isn't even as close as proposed legislation. this article is also on eff's site who have their own narrow minded goals. this is part of democracy where groups negotiate with each other to get what they want. to negotiate you have to give something up, so the industry is proposing a lot of things it knows will get removed and likewise eff calls attention to things it would like to be removed but never will be. everyone is doing their job as long as citizens stay informed and these 'interest' groups work together to get an outcome more people will find acceptable.

Negotiating (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859596)

this is part of democracy where groups negotiate with each other to get what they want. to negotiate you have to give something up,

Some things are non-negotiable.

xxAA: We want to take away all your rights.

EFF/users: No!

xxAA: Oh, come on. Let's negotiate about this.

Re:Negotiating (0, Troll)

vxice (1690200) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859836)

Taking away all rights is what they would give up. as would EFF give up the purely user centric definition of rights ie we want it for free, or better yet pay us to consume your goods. Some rights would be kept others wouldn't, hopefully in a manner that made sense and benefited most.

Re:wish list (1)

Col. Klink (retired) (11632) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859626)

So EFF shouldn't be asking for balanced copyright laws, they should be asking for the complete abolition of all copyright (and willing to settle for a rational policy).

PS: Your shift key broken or something?

Re:wish list (2, Funny)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859678)

Entertainment wants to be free!

Re:wish list (1)

vxice (1690200) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859876)

Entertainment wants? How could entertainment possibly want anything. "I" want entertainment to be free and I want a lot of other things for free but none of them want or yearn to free themselves from the bondage of cost.

Re:wish list (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859862)

this article is also on eff's site who have their own narrow minded goals

Freedom is not a narrow minded goal.

Re:wish list (1)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859930)

So, in your world view, corporate special interests and 'narrow minded' groups like the EFF, which works to protect the rights of citizens, are lumped into the same group, and we, the citizens, will be best served by a compromise between those who would remove all our rights for a buck, and those who would protect them without asking for anything from us?

It isn't about users policing themselves (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859364)

I thought the comment about users policing themselves to be quite unrealistic, so I went to the source documents.

Network administrators and providers should be encouraged to implement those
solutions that are available and reasonable to address infringement on their networks.

Essentially, what is being proposed is a means for ISPs and other bandwidth providers the means to detect and shape traffic based on certain filters. It also proposes that ISPs be allowed to require certain software to be installed in order to access the networks.

This proposal isn't so much about requiring that something be done to users. Rather, it is aiming to limit the liability of network providers if they were to implement such measures.

It's onerous, but not quite the evil plot that the EFF has blown it up into.

Groups Can Lobby for Anything (1)

MrTripps (1306469) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859370)

I write my Congress Critter for free hookers and blow, but that doesn't mean I'm going to get it. It is a standard tactic to ask for pie in the sky stuff just to make your other requests look more credible. In the meantime, there is this thing called the 4th Amendment that can make the RIAA go pound sand.

Re:Groups Can Lobby for Anything (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859494)

Yep. But once upon a time copyrights longer than 30 years sounded really ludicrous....

Re:Groups Can Lobby for Anything (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859660)

Did you include a large bribe^Wcampaign contribution in that letter?

Re:Groups Can Lobby for Anything (1)

swalker42 (944794) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859700)

I write my Congress Critter for free hookers and blow, but that doesn't mean I'm going to get it.

But I bet if Congress asked the entertainment industry for hookers and blow they would get them within the hour...

Re:Groups Can Lobby for Anything (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859708)

I bet if you had included a $100K "donation" to said Critters' "re-election campaign", you would have gotten your H & B in short order. But that is kind of a non-issue since the *AA don't have that kind of cash, right?

Re:Groups Can Lobby for Anything (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859780)

I bet if you had included a $100K "donation" to said Critters' "re-election campaign", you would have gotten your H & B in short order.

What a silly idea.

There are way cheaper ways to quickly and discreetly procure hookers and blow.

Re:Groups Can Lobby for Anything (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859808)

...It is a standard tactic to ask for pie in the sky stuff just to make your other requests look more credible....

I wonder why that makes sense to so many people - asking for things which a mad, sociopath lunatic would want makes you more credible? Really?

To paraphrase Star Wars... (5, Insightful)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859406)

"The more you tighten your grip, the more control will slip through your fingers"

If they treat consumers as enemies they will become enemies.

haggling (3, Insightful)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859424)

Surely this is more a case of haggling. Ask for an infeasible price knowing you then have more scope to haggle down to a still unfair price.

Re:haggling (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859630)

From TFA:

Of course, these comments are just an entertainment industry wishlist, an exercise in asking for the moon. But they reveal a great deal about the entertainment industry's vision of the 21st century: less privacy (with citizens actively participating in their own surveillance), a less-neutral Internet, and federal agents acting as paid muscle to protect profits of summer blockbusters.

Re:haggling (2, Insightful)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859648)

politics, where one get one batshit person in suit to make a outrageous claim so that a very similar claim from different suit seems mundane...

Re:haggling (3, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859958)

Of course it is. And remember we're only seeing what EFF want us to see - they're hardly going to present the most unbiased view.

Thing is, money talks. It certainly talks to the US government, and also to my own (UK) government. Those who are going all out pro-piracy are easily labelled as insane (which is remarkably easy - much of the western world doesn't produce any sort of property but intellectual, it doesn't take a debating genius to put forward an argument that some sort of protection is absolutely necessary for the continued wellbeing of the economy - frankly, the previous system of patronage doesn't scale so well. It's easy to overlook the fact that a cleverly built website could probably fix that by allowing lots of small donations to be wrapped up into one big lump, because nobody's done that yet. Closest thing is probably Magnatunes).

This leaves the moderates. Those who produce and/or enjoy music, don't see a problem with artists getting paid per se but do see a problem with the current system. Problem is, AFAICT the moderates aren't proposing workable solutions, they're simply complaining that every suggestion that's brought up is worse than the current system. Which is true, but right now you've got people on all sides saying "We need to do something. Hey, Government, do something!" and the only "something" that's being presented to do is presented by the entertainment industry. So the Government reaction is likely to be "We need to do something. This is something. Let's do it."

The current US administration (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31859434)

RIAA and MPAA attorneys have been appointed to some of the nation's most valuable legal posts. It is clear that the current administration is strongly in favor of Big Media and more than willing to go along with their schemes.

RMS described it well (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859448)

The Right to Read [gnu.org] was written 13 years ago, and is still remarkably prescient.

Re:RMS described it well (1)

_PimpDaddy7_ (415866) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859772)

I just read this for the first time. AMAZING.

Sadly, too many people don't care, are too ignorant, worrying about the next reality show, and when to buy the next bag of Doritos(TM).

Re:RMS described it well (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859856)

If it makes you feel better, I think I've never eaten Doritos.

Re:RMS described it well (0, Offtopic)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31860024)

And you call yourself a slashdotter?!? :O

Re:RMS described it well (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31859946)

remarkably prescient in that it hasn't happened yet, but you still cling to the hope that it will someday so that he doesn't look like a nattering assmonkey who eats toechunks whilst speaking publicly?

It's not the government bending over, its you (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859464)

Government doesn't care if it has to bend over, as long as YOU bend over, and are reminded that you have to bend over, and that there's never anything they can do about it. People have almost forgotten the difference between the power of the dollar and that of the gun - here's a chance for the government to bend you over, but blame Big Media. THEN, once you're fully trained, they can bend you over for anything else (taxes, mandatory service, forced relcations, rationing, etc).

Breaking Point? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31859478)

If we do indeed fall down this path of digital invasion, where Copyright is seen as a valid 'foot-in-the-door' for scanning every home PC, what is the breaking point to turn off the PC? Or worse, will wide-scale law enforcement be used to enforce Copyright and IP law? Will the cops be busting down the doors to see if you've infringed on a movie, only to be met w/ guns blazing? Is this where we, or they intend for this type of relationship to develop?

It's stories like this that remind me why I support neither modern music, or cinema. And while Microsoft, and Apple are willing accomplices to this behavior, I'll continue to use and push Linux and FOSS at every opportunity I can muster.

Has it come to a "Freedom or Nothing" divide?

It's already here basically (3, Interesting)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859496)

Border searches of data storage - sure (a small addition of one stated purpose required)

Spyware that deletes infringing content - game DRM is very close; if it "thinks" something's wrong, it nukes your ability to use the content.

Managing to stay mostly under the radar just fine...

Re:It's already here basically (1)

Nexzus (673421) | more than 4 years ago | (#31860016)

Border searches of data storage - sure (a small addition of one stated purpose required)

Can they even keep up with technology, though. Yeah, most agents can identify a laptop or MP3 player. My car stereo can accept up to a 16 GB sd card filled with music - will they know to look at that?

And here I was just joking... (4, Insightful)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859512)

A few times in copyright threads, while alluding to the insanity of the media corporations, I have testified that one of my big paranoid fears is legislation that requires content filtering software on all computers and related devices. Fine and dandy for Windows and Mac, but implementing that for all the Linux distros would be ridiculously hard. The solution? Outlaw Linux. "It's just a hacker's tool anyway."

*shakes head*

Re:And here I was just joking... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31859954)

Calgary Police service already does that. Any one running a non-Windows based system, which they can not easily search, must be a 'hacker' or another type of criminal.

Running Gnu/Linux on personal desktops and laptops which were seized by the Calgary Police Service, resulted in a long lengthy court battle after my formal employer (a Calgary based Identity Management Company) filed false charges to avoid paying on a lawsuit for wrongful dismissal.

It was entered into Court Records, a member of the Calgary Police Service, stating 'Only Hackers run Linux.'.

         

Oh my (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31859538)

Oh my science, to what we have been reduced! Entertainment being the most important industry.

Shadowrun... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31859564)

here we come. I'm just looking forward to Dec. 24th, 2011 and my cyberware.

Captcha: Hickory - Hickory what?! Smoked WHAT?!

Security through obscurity (1)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859570)

Would a security inspector even know what an LTO or 3592 tape cartridge looks like? I can fit a lot of music/movies on a tape. Come to think about it, most people on this earth or /. don't know what a LTO or a 3592 tape cartridge looks like. I don't even need to use the native encryption built into LTO-4 or the TS1130 drives.

Just hope they don't put me into a little room until they locate something to access the tape..

Re:Security through obscurity (1)

plsander (30907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859644)

Ahh.. big iron

So much stuff that would be useful at home here in the data center. At least in the winter, when excess heat is a good thing.

Re:Security through obscurity (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859972)

Couldn't they just add a customs fee per item, based on the type of media? Then they would make it really expensive to transport obsolete media like that--or even ban it outright.

For once, /. summary not an exageration (2, Interesting)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859594)

Just a sample:

There are several technologies and methods that can be used by network administrators and providers...these include [consumer] tools for managing copyright infringement from the home (based on tools used to protect consumers from viruses and malware).

In other words, the entertainment industry thinks consumers should voluntarily install software that constantly scans our computers and identifies (and perhaps deletes) files found to be "infringing." It's hard to believe the industry thinks savvy [sic], security-conscious consumers would voluntarily do so. But those who remember the Sony BMG rootkit debacle know that the entertainment industry is all too willing to sacrifice consumers at the altar of copyright enforcement.
Pervasive copyright filtering

Network administrators and providers should be encouraged to implement those solutions that are available and reasonable to address infringement on their networks.

Right. I have a hard enough time getting my customers to realise the danger of installing pirated software; now I'll have to tell them that they should try and implement stuff that will detected 'illegal' MP3s and AVIs.
Oh, and in order to do so will necessitate rootkitting all their boxen and opening the corporate firewall?
Yeah, that'll work...

bending (4, Insightful)

Jodka (520060) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859600)

Given the US government's willingness to bend over for Big Media...

Wrong metaphor; It is not the government who is getting screwed here. On the contrary, congressmen are collect big checks from media corporations for selling off our rights. I think you mean.

Given the US government's willingness to force citizens to bend over for Big Media

You ain't seen nothin' yet (5, Funny)

Wolvenhaven (1521217) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859646)

I met a devil media, they took my music away
They said I had it comin' to me, but I wanted it that way
I think that any music is good music
And so I took what I could get, mmm
Oooh, oooh, they looked at me with big brown eyes
And said

You ain't seen nothin' yet
B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet
Here's something that you never gonna forget
B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet

And now I'm feelin' better, 'cause I found out for sure
They took me to their lawyer and he told me of a cure
He said that only their music is good music
So I took what I could get, yes, I took what I could get
Oooh, and they looked at me with big brown eyes
And said

You ain't seen nothin' yet
B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet
Here's something, here's something that you're never gonna forget
B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet
You need educated

Any music is good music
So I took what I could get, yes, I took what I could get
And then, and then, and then they looked at me with big brown eyes
And said

You ain't seen nothin' yet
Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet
Here's something, here's something,
here's something, mama, you're never gonna forget
B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nu-nu-nu-nothin' yet
You ain't been around

You ain't seen nothin' yet
I know I ain't seen nothin' yet
I know I ain't seen nothin' yet
Baby, Baby, Baby
You ain't seen nothin' yet

Sad State of the US (1)

DigiWood (311681) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859658)

The US used to be a technological super power. Now the US is all about suing everyone into submission. I have friends from abroad that won't travel to the US because of the draconian process they have to go through to enter the country. TSA agents taking high tech electronics. Invasive searches and questioning. All for what? A false sense of security. The TSA rent-a-cops didn't stop the guy over Christmas 2009. The passengers of the flight did. And having government officials police copyright is laughable. How can they tell what is legit and what is not? This will just make air travel that much more irrelevant. I will be taking a train when travelling from now on. I don't travel outside the US, so that will work for me. Yeah it takes more time. Oh well.

The U.S. Depends on it (4, Insightful)

SoTerrified (660807) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859672)

Look, the reality is that the U.S. economy currently depends almost exclusively on culturally created content/entertainment. Nothing gets made in the U.S. and exported anymore BUT movies, music, etc. So it's not a surprise that it's becoming more and more draconian in trying to defend those assets.

It's like if one country controlled all the oil. They'd jack up prices, but they'd also do everything they could to stifle the creation of oil alternatives. They'd start to insist changes in engine designs that used their oil, or else they wouldn't sell you the oil. They'd limit anyone trying to purchase the oil then refine it on their own, because they'd want to do all the refining themselves.

Every indicator I see says that this is going to get much worse in the future.

Re:The U.S. Depends on it (3, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#31860134)

Look, the reality is that the U.S. economy currently depends almost exclusively on culturally created content/entertainment.

So our society will collapse if people stop buying the latest Lady Gaga album?

Nothing gets made in the U.S. and exported anymore BUT movies, music, etc. So it's not a surprise that it's becoming more and more draconian in trying to defend those assets.

Except that all the defenses are aimed at stopping stuff from coming in, not going out. Nobody checks laptops, cameras, thumb drives, etc. that could be leaving the country with the latest music videos, jet fighter blueprints, photos of the White House and other target candidates.

Its all about maintaining a monopoly for distribution within this country. Companies see no need to cut prices or improve products so long as they have a block of suckers (us) that have to buy their products at huge markups.

MPAA & RIAA: Social Harmony approved! (1)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859686)

I'm sorry, but as I read the RIAA/MPAA text I thought I was reading Cory Doctorow's "I, Robot" [craphound.com] again, specifically the scene where the Social Harmony (sort of like 1984's thought police, redone for the 21st century) representative explains why a government-run monopoly on technology makes everything better. (For him.)

“Now, the latest stats show a sharp rise in grey-market electronics importing and other tariff-breaking crimes, mostly occurring in open-air market stalls and from sidewalk blankets. I know that many in law enforcement treat this kind of thing as mere hand-to-hand piracy, not worth troubling with, but I want to assure you, gentlemen and lady, that Social Harmony takes these crimes very seriously indeed.”

Don't steal equates to, NOTHING TO FEAR HERE !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31859690)

Don't steal, seems like a good COUNTER-MEASURE to this, wouldn't you agree? If you don't agree, then the conclusion is obvious, and why this plan is to go into effect. Do you mind searching for illegals? Contraband? WMDs? If you are carrying or otherwise involved in those activities, yes, you do. Why get so defensive if you aren't stealing? Gotcha !! Inescapable logic wins again !!

Gov. and Big Media (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31859768)

Given the US government's willingness to bend over for Big Media

That's a false impression. Both the government and the Big Media are mainly owned by the same people.

From that noted journal of Socialism (1)

wiredog (43288) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859792)

The Economist [economist.com]

 

A return to the 28-year copyrights of the Statute of Anne would be in many ways arbitrary, but not unreasonable. If there is a case for longer terms, they should be on a renewal basis, so that content is not locked up automatically. The value society places on creativity means that fair use needs to be expanded and inadvertent infringement should be minimally penalised.

The EFF should do itself a favor (1)

brit74 (831798) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859798)

While this suggestions shouldn't see the light of day, one of the problems I have with the EFF is that they never propose a way to deal with piracy. This is because they are piracy-friendly. Here's an example from their own article:

EFF's words: Bully countries that have tech-friendly policies

From the RIAA proposal: Targeting such companies and websites in the Special 301 report would put the countries involved on notice that dealing with such hotbeds of copyright theft will be an important topic of bilateral engagement with the U.S. in the year to come.

It's obvious from their language that they want to prevent anyone from putting pressure on Sweden or the PirateBay to stop piracy. Personally, I don't see what the problem is here. The EFF clearly wants piracy to continue, and they want to shut-down any attempts to put pressure on anyone involved in piracy -- even if it's a globally famous website like the PirateBay. By using language like "bullying" they're using intentionally inflammatory language. In other contexts (like, say, trade in chemical weapons, slavery, etc), I have no doubt that the EFF wouldn't have a problem with the US "bullying" other nations into doing the right thing - of course, they wouldn't use the word "bullying" because they actually agree with enforcement in those cases. So, by labeling any enforcement as "bullying" they're attempting to steer the discussion.

The EFF should really do itself a favor and stop siding with the pirates. If they hate the suggestions that the RIAA makes for dealing with piracy, then they should make some decent suggestions of their own. Instead, the EFF constantly drags its feet on any enforcement of any kind of copyright issue. Based on their pattern of behavior, it's clear that the EFF won't be happy until piracy is 100% legal.

Re:The EFF should do itself a favor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31859980)

What's so bad about "piracy"? We the people giveth copyright, and we can taketh away. By perpetual copyright extension, the corporations have shown that they do not intend to uphold their end of the copyright bargain (that would be the "expires after a limited time part"). In doing so, they've thrown the baby out with the bath water. Not only will we copy old stuff freely, but new stuff as well. That's what happens when people get too greedy. It's the free market at its finest. I can get a DRM laden DVD/CD/game for $xx, or I can get an unencumbered one from a friend for free. Hmmm... decisions, decisions.

Re:The EFF should do itself a favor (1)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#31860022)

Has it occurred to you that the EFF is, for several very good reasons. in favor of weaker copyright laws, under which "piracy" happens to be a non-issue?

In that context, you accuse them of steering the discussion, but you're no better when you say they're "pro-piracy" in an attempt to invalidate everything they say.

Be sure to let me know how that's working for you (2)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859844)

doublefacepalm.jpg
I don't know what the entertainment industry has been smoking, but it must be some powerful shit if they think crap like this is going to fly. Read my lips: Over my dead body.

"Under the radar?" (1)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859914)

Sounds like the submitter is concerned that people won't pay attention to this issue and/or take it seriously.

Here's an idea: If you want to encourage people to pay attention, lay off the trite cliches about Orwell and just stick to a factual discussion of what's going on.

You know who's really to blame for the health care bill passing? That would be the highly vocal conservatives yelling about "death panels" when they should've been sending a message people would listen to.

Touché MPAA/RIAA/OMNIPATENTDROLLCARTEL (2, Insightful)

An dochasac (591582) | more than 4 years ago | (#31859922)

I already have a copyright on this idea:

This device was designed to play musical notes of the ancient equal tempered scale. That scale has been illegal since 2066 when the copyright was awarded to the Orbcorp oligopoly. Any intellectual property using this scale was confiscated, uploaded to the Orb and safely locked away forever-- along with everything else.

Don't you just hate it when you're not even finished with your great American dystopian Sci-Fi novel and it suddenly morphs into a friggin' documentary?

AV software (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31859982)

I'm just waiting for the day when the .gov requires all malware/OS vendors to scan for certain types of media and alert on the presence of offending files as well as uploading files to some vault for evidence preservation.

It'll start with scanning and alerting to images/video of crimes against children. Then it will progress into alerting on possible copyright infringement or anything that goes against the pockets of the .gov and big business.

Intel, et al (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 4 years ago | (#31860010)

Trusted Computing makes a comeback.

The new War on Drugs (5, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#31860020)

This is the new War on Drugs. Think of all the freedom we lost fighting the war on drugs. If you're within 100 miles of a border, you can be stopped and search for any reason without a warrant. It's a common occurrence to piss in a cup in front of a stranger as a condition of employment. Anyone carrying moderate to large amounts of cash can have it confiscated by the police, with no trial of any sort. And so on.

But the war on drugs is old and busted, we need a new enemy. As the U.S. loses its economic dominance of the world, anything that threatens (whether in theory or fact) the cultural dominance we've had is going to be attacked vigorously. It will be a scorched earth policy. We can expect to lose as many, if not more of our right under this new War on Copyright Infringement. It's just ramping up now, but we'll be seeing people who speak out against the new laws branded as anti-American. Copyright infringement will become a jailable offense.

Sure, it sounds preposterous now. But once upon a time jailing someone for Cannabis would have been preposterous. The American propaganda system is the best in the world. If they can sell a 70 year war on a substance that's factually safer than aspirin, if they can manipulate us into an optional war in Iraq for absolutely no reason at all, they'll have no problem turning copyright infringement into the next witch hunt.

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...