Beta
×

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 Cracks Down On Piracy & Counterfeiting

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the smash-and-grab dept.

Government 323

GovTechGuy writes "On Tuesday the White House made a show of rolling out an expansive new strategy to combat online piracy and counterfeit goods, to the delight of industry groups. The plan emphasizes targeting foreign websites that host pirated software and movies and increasing the number of investigations and prosecutions by the FBI, FTC, and Justice Department. Here is the complete plan, introduced by the new 'copyright czar,' Victoria Espinel."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The people lose again (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659632)

Well, once again, the major parties fail to work for the benefit of the people, and focus instead on the interests of large corporations. No surprises there I guess.

Re:The people lose again (-1, Troll)

bunratty (545641) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659684)

Yeah, ever since they made laws against shoplifting I can't go into Walmart and take whatever I want for free. Those lawmakers are just protecting the self-interests of big corporations!

Re:The people lose again (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659698)

Yes, because it is so far fetched to wonder why the federal government is working for the exclusive benefit of the same corporations that are waging a campaign to bankrupt college students, instead of working to making college education more affordable.

Re:The people lose again (1)

hhedeshian (1343143) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659746)

And then we wonder why college students spend their money on drugs. Well, it's cheaper than a dvd and it lasts the whole night, not 95 minutes. Frankly, drugs and booze are far more entertaining than "Ice Age 65764 R2 Second Edition Professional Collectors Shiny Foil on Box"

Re:The people lose again (2, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659884)

>>>the same corporations that are waging a campaign to bankrupt college students, instead of working to making college education more affordable.

College already is damn cheap. At state schools about half the tuition is covered by taxpayers. Plus your professors earn very little salary and would actually be better-off quitting & going to work in industry (about $30,000 per year more). And the room rental works out to just $11-12 per night.

I think college is actually quite cheap, and I wish we could have a similar privatized model at the K-12 level. (Gov't schools cost ~$10,000 each year - private is only $3500.)

Re:The people lose again (4, Interesting)

Strudelkugel (594414) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660266)

Student loans provided by the Federal Gov. have the same effect as mortgage loans provided by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae- they raise the price of the underlying product. Just like cheap credit inflated the cost of housing, gov. provided loans are inflating the cost of education. In addition, educational institutions like to tempt students with the promise of high paying jobs (just like that house will be worth more in the future!), leading many students into oppressive debt burdens. Unlike many home loans, however, default on a student loan is a lot more problematic.

If education had less government subsidy, it would probably be cheaper or at least more cost effective. Everything the government subsidizes to "help the people" distorts markets by raising the price or over production. It can also encourage other risky behaviors. [minyanville.com] This is not to be confused with long lead time gov. led efforts, such as basic research, environmental studies and the like, in which a "market" either would not exist or would be dysfunctional due to lack or participants. Government clearly has important roles. Providing student loans is not one of them.

Re:The people lose again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32659712)

Piracy is not shoplifting.

Re:The people lose again (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660230)

The federal government doesn't meddle in shoplifting either.

In truth, no cop wants to bother with this stuff. This is why Hollywood had to buy this sort of law. Cops would rather chase drug kingpins or bank robbers.

There's simply no glory in shutting down Canal Street.

Re:The people lose again (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32659714)

Congratulations! You win the first Idiocy Award for conflating physical with intellectual goods as if the distinction hasn't been made millions of times in prior discussions. Bend over and accept your award.

Re:The people lose again (0, Flamebait)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659734)

There is a difference between a physical good and a virtual good. Virtual goods (such as digital music, software, music, etc.) can (and are) copied endlessly with little to no cost. The same cannot be said of food and other physical goods.

Re:The people lose again (1)

AcidPenguin9873 (911493) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659784)

That's true, but for virtual goods, there is a non-zero (and sometimes significant) creation cost to create the first copy, and creators try to use repeated sales of the good to cover that creation cost.

Re:The people lose again (3, Insightful)

spazdor (902907) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659906)

try

Exactly.

Re:The people lose again (2, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659910)

There's a radio host named Alex Jones who gives his stuff away for free (via internet) or for purchase (physical copy), but he doesn't seem to be going bankrupt. He still rakes-in plenty of cash. There are probably other examples, but Jones is the first one that popped into my head.

POINT: Just because the net exists doesn't mean the company will disappear. There are enough people who prefer physical product (like me) that they will continue raking-in millions each year. For them to claim they "lose" is ridiculous. There was no cost to them when I downloaded that Britney song, and even if the net didn't exist, I wouldn't buy her crap anyway.

Re:The people lose again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32659940)

xkcd was the first to pop into my head

Re:The people lose again (2, Insightful)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660100)

Completely agree. But that cost is recouped many times over, if the product is any good, within the first 5 years or so. Yet, for goods that can be reproduced digitally the cost never goes down after the cost is recouped.

The RIAA and MPAA are losing business because of their own retarded business practices and refusal to fully embrace the Net as a means of low-cost distribution.

Re:The people lose again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32659844)

Yeah, because as we all know it costs just as much to record a CD as what you pay for it in the store just like those other products you buy...

Oh, wait!

Re:The people lose again (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660070)

wait, what?

Re:The people lose again (4, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660202)

No. They are not virtual goods either. Your close, but missing something. Both terms imply that theft, at some level, in some context can occur. Theft of intellectual property is in impossibility, by the very definitions of the words involved. The cost, or effort, of copying is also irrelevant.

When you give your money for the shiny piece of plastic, you are also granted license rights, that we The Peeps (aka Government), granted copyright holders to bestow upon others.

Only one thing happens when you "pirate" or receive a digital copy of a copyrighted work without compensating the copyright holder: Infringement . The definition, "A violation, as of a law, regulation, or agreement; a breach." does not, and never has, implied Theft which has the definition, "(Law) Criminal law the dishonest taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession".

Now a copyright can be viewed as physical property, but that is the copyright itself. To permanently deprive somebody of their copyright means I somehow transferred those legal entitlements to myself and started receiving money and granting others license to use that work, per my newly and illicitly acquired intellectual property rights.

All of the analogies to physically stealing anything are complete and utter tripe based on fallacious logic, and deliberate misinterpretation of law. Content companies (derogatorily referred to as Big Media) would love to have the act of Infringement conflated with Theft. It serves their purpose to have the public incorrectly associate the two to accomplish fear mongering.

Of course the fact, that no college student or citizen has ever been convicted of theft of an MP3 seems to make no difference. Defendants are always sued for damages as it relates to the acts of infringement in a civil court and not a criminal court. No district attorney has ever prosecuted criminal charges against an ordinary citizen for what we consider to be piracy because it is pointless. It does not meet the definition of criminal levels of infringement which traditionally require intent to profit financially or large scale distribution. Those have been amended in recent times, but nonetheless, nobody has ever been prosecuted criminally for it, despite the fact that torrents and file sharing have involved distribution at what some consider to be large scale.

It makes very little sense, and I don't support piracy. However, I don't support the type of ignorance you were replying to either and it always motivates me to put out yet another post hoping to educate people on what a copyright really is.

Re:The people lose again (0)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659770)

If the government was acting in OUR interest, it would force places like Walmart to accept returns of CDs and DVDs. If I was able to buy stuff, discover it is shit, and then return it for refund, I would not need to follow my current practice of downloading-before-buying. It's a crime against the consumer to force them to keep a product they don't like.

Prior to the internet I wasted sooooo much money on crappy movies and music albums. Now I don't need to. I only buy it if I like it. ----- And don't give me shit about reading reviews. Most of those reviews are corporate-written and can not be trusted. I only trust my own eyes and ears.

Re:The people lose again (4, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659822)

It's a crime against the consumer to force them to keep a product they don't like.

How is it a "crime"? Were you forced into buying the product? Was the product defective? Was the product exactly as it was advertised when sold? I'm sorry, but I see nothing criminal in the fact that a store isn't obligated to accept returns on things that are neither faulty nor were sold under fraudulent terms (and no, the fact that you didn't like it doesn't make the sale fraudulent).

Re:The people lose again (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659872)

Was the product defective? Was the product exactly as it was advertised when sold? I'm sorry, but I see nothing criminal in the fact that a store isn't obligated to accept returns on things that are neither faulty nor were sold under fraudulent terms (and no, the fact that you didn't like it doesn't make the sale fraudulent).

Go buy 'White Noise' on DVD, watch it, then tell us how much you support the no-returns policy.

Re:The people lose again (1, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659988)

I liked that movie. A better example might be Uwe Boll's "Alone in the Dark" or "House of the Dead". You buy this crap from Walmart. Should you be forced to keep it? No.

I don't care if some future government law merely says Walmart has to give me store credit - it's still better than throwing-away $15 on shit. Hell even candy bar makers warranty their products ("if unsatisfied return the unused portion for a refund"). Why can't record and movie companies follow that example?

Re:The people lose again (2, Interesting)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659998)

Why can't record and movie companies follow that example?

They don't understand that as long as people are having fun the money will roll towards them. What kills me is 10 years ago Paramount was trying to take down screen grabs of Star Trek from fan sites.

Re:The people lose again (2, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659888)

Well, consider this: the consumer may just be curious about the music. On the one hand, they can download it, and not have to worry about not liking it -- but that is illegal, and should the corporation that produced the music wish to, they can bring the consumer to court with the blessing of the executive branch. On the other hand, they can purchase it, but if they don't like it they have no guaranteed recourse.

That sure sounds like a system that is designed to favor the rich and powerful corporations, rather than the consumers.

Re:The people lose again (2, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659908)

Because there is no way to try before you buy legally. With a book its close to a non-issue, Barnes and Noble won't kick me out for reading a full book while in their store, why is it so different with music/DVDs? Unless I can listen to the entire album in-store, I don't know what I'm buying. Lets say I buy a physical good, a clock radio for example. However, I don't like the alarm sound of it because I don't think it will get me up, I repackage the product and return it no questions asked mostly.

If Wal-Mart let me listen to the full album before I bought it, it wouldn't be an issue. If it was legal to listen to the album by downloading it at home before I bought it it would be a non-issue. But if I don't know what I'm getting, and I can't return it, it isn't a product, its a gamble.

Re:The people lose again (1, Insightful)

MalHavoc (590724) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660052)

The problem here is that few people (maybe you have, and if so, awesome) actually go to a bookstore and read a *whole* book before they decide to buy it. Where do you draw the line there?

"Wow, the butler didn't do it. That sucks. No sale."

Most people might read the back cover, maybe the first chapter, read a few reviews online, and decide. Especially if they've read other works by that author. But the whole book?

I'm betting that if you were able to listen to clips of every track on an album, say, 30 seconds worth, that'd be a reasonable compromise. Amazon does this now, and some brick and mortar stores let you listen to a CD before you buy it, in store. It's probaby a "safe bet", to use your gamble analogy, to assume that if 30 seconds out of every track is stuff you don't like, the other 3 or 4 minutes of each track may also not be something you'd like.

The bigger stores might only offer some of the "top 5" albums, but there are some smaller, locally run stores near here that will let me listen to an album in the store for ten or 15 minutes and I can decide if I like it. If I don't buy it, the retailer takes a loss on that CD because he might have to knock a few bucks off if it since it is opened, but I'm pretty sure I spend enough in there to make it worth his while.

Re:The people lose again (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660106)

Except that music is a lot different from books. People listen to a CD they like more than once -- it is not like a novel, which is not very interesting the second time around. In fact, I would say it is a sign that the CD is not particularly well liked if someone only listens to it once, and then never again.

Re:The people lose again (2, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660180)

Most people might read the back cover, maybe the first chapter, read a few reviews online, and decide. Especially if they've read other works by that author. But the whole book?

Yes, most people. See, that is the key. Most people don't have enough free time to sit down and read an entire book. But the thing is, they don't stop you if you read the entire book. Same thing with an album or DVD, few people are going to sit down and watch/listen to the entire thing, or same thing with games, but why stop them? Our entire economy is based on convenience, I have broadband because its more convenient than dial-up, I've got a car because its a whole lot easier to drive 15 miles to work everyday rather than walk those 15 miles, I've got a refrigerator rather than buying food everyday because its easier, etc. I could probably save money if I bought a modem for my laptop and subscribed to a dirt-cheap dial-up service, but it would be a lot less convenient.

You would gain more sales than "losses" according to the *AA if you could watch an entire movie or listen to an entire album before you purchased it. The problem with 30 second samples is that it doesn't reflect the entire song. The -vast- majority of my iTunes purchases are songs that I've been listening to for a while on YouTube, I don't go out and buy obscure albums without knowing what the songs are. And unless the album is at a steep discount when compared to the songs I like individually, I won't buy an entire album.

I like certainty in my purchases. Why should I spend the price for a decent meal on an album unless I know for sure I will like it? Does this strategy mean I buy less music? Yes. Does this strategy mean that I spend more on my music? Yes. Using YouTube and other sites with music on it I will generally end up finding more artists that I really like, that I will buy their albums and go to see concerts, buy merchandise, etc.

I'm going to end up spending less money if I buy a few sub-par albums I don't really like when compared to one album that I really love so I go to the concerts.

Re:The people lose again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32660110)

I buy some stuff on Amazon. They let you play samples of songs before you buy.

Re:The people lose again (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659948)

>>>How is it a "crime"?

In nearly-all jurisdictions it is a crime for a company to sell an inferior product and then refuse to refund money. Even in "as is" cases the courts have ruled that the company must refund the customer, if the company claimed the product was working but in fact did not work. The legal system is designed to protect the customer and charge companies with crimes if they don't obey these laws. (See U.S. v. Warner Records, Sony, et al. from ten years ago.)
.

>>>Was the product exactly as it was advertised when sold?

No. We all know that movies/music are advertised in a manner that makes them appear better than they are. How many times I've heard people say, "The only good parts of the movie were in the ad. The rest was crap."

Re:The people lose again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32660168)

In software--often times, YES!

Were you forced into buying windows? Most people were by market conditions.

Was it defective: By most reasonable definitions.

Was the CD I bought last week defective: Yes. It wouldn't play on my computer. By the legal definition of a CD, partially owned by Sony, it was not a CD and was a misappropriation of their trademark. Of course, they won't enforce it since somebody probably paid license fees.

Was it exactly as advertised when sold: No--it may contain DRM, software that contacts home, software that interferes with other software, a web browser, a media player, a list of trusted certificate authorities, an internet messenger, text editor, and who knows what else... It is in short, impossible for them to have made it exactly as advertised.

It may in fact contain a license that says "click cancel if you do not agree and return the software to the store"--when the store has a policy of no returns.

So yes--in point of fact, the term of sale was fraudulent. It violated the doctrine of first sale, and many times does not permit me to utilize the product as advertised on the box, in commercials, or as marketed in magazines and trade shows. Or should I just assume that any time I eat at a restaurant the menu will come with terms of use that I agree to indemnify the company in any lawsuit ever for any reason? Suck me lawfag.

I buy a $500 piece of software off the shelf, I expect a word processor--NOT a god damned license in which I give up most of my rights for permission to install it without committing a copyright violation based on a horrible legal decision 25 years ago.

Just because most educated people commit fraud on a daily basis does not make it legal or right. When's the last time you bought a new computer and read the license you agreed to? Nobody does.

Re:The people lose again (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660254)

> How is it a "crime"? ...how quickly the corporate toadies forget about the rule of law when it suits their agenda.

There is actually a set of standardized state laws that govern this very thing.

It's called the Uniform Commercial Code. This is what normally makes a company like Walmart liable for selling you junk.

The only reason that Walmart and BestBuy won't accept DVD returns is the fact that this anti-piracy hysteria predates the Internet and Big Content has always had clout.

Buy the textbook or fail the class. (2, Interesting)

earls (1367951) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660272)

"Were you forced into buying the product?" Yes, in order to succeed in the class, I was required to buy the selected textbook. And no, not last year's used edition, the brand new edition with at a premium. That's as closed to "forced to buy the product" as I can think of short of a gun barrel in my mouth.

Re:The people lose again (2, Insightful)

santiagodraco (1254708) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659930)

Of course the fact that every movie avail on DVD has been out in the theaters already, and reviewed.... and music albums are played on radio stations regularly, and streamed...

Yeah you are right. Walmart is the problem you buy crappy DVD's and music, not you. They absolutely should take back that opened container that you absolutely did not RIP to your media server at home...

Please...

Think of the Children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32659968)

You said,

If the government was acting in OUR interest, it would force places like Walmart to accept returns of CDs and DVDs.

The government is acting in your best interests. More specifically it is acting to protect the children against dangerous counterfeit goods. According too our Copyright Czar [whitehouse.gov] ,

U.S. Customs officials have seized several shipments of counterfeit toothpaste containing a dangerous amount of diethylene glycol, a chemical used in brake fluid, and that in sufficient doses is believed to cause kidney failure.

Children unfortunately use toothpaste. The United States of America is a law abiding country, so we need to protect people from criminals who commit illegal acts. It is your patriotic duty to uphold the laws of the United States of America. If you don't like the laws, or think they are too strict, then you can always vote in a Republican President during the next election.

For every one of those CD's that you sample without paying for, there are millions of dollars of money and spin off jobs that the RIAA, its lawyers, accountants, lobbyists, bookkeepers, musicians, officer cleaners, etc and so on lose, just because you wouldn't pay for a CD that you didn't like but decided to listen to anyways. All of this money could be used to pay taxes to pay for more robust Internet filters at schools and in libraries. Think about it. Your behavior is directly hurting children!

Re:The people lose again (1)

Delarth799 (1839672) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659892)

And ever since this became fantasy land, downloading became the same as stealing!

Re:The people lose again (2, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659944)

Downloading is not the same as stealing, but when you make a copy of a book, CD, or DVD instead of paying for it, you are denying revenue to pay for the creation and distribution of the content. If everyone did that, most wouldn't bother with creating and distributing content, because they wouldn't be able to make a living at it.

Face it. Many Slashdotters are against copyright and patents just because they want to freeload. They don't give a thought to the consequences their actions have.

Re:The people lose again (2, Insightful)

kholburn (625432) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660002)

So if I go to my library and borrow a book for free, or a DVD or a CD I am stealing? Am I denying revenue to pay for creation and distribution of the content?

I and most people I know have been doing this for a long time with books and guess what - there are still books being written.

Re:The people lose again (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660034)

What a stupid question! I never, ever said anything about stealing. What do you think? When you check something out of a library, are you stealing? Have Slashdotters completely lost their ability to think for themselves?

Re:The people lose again (4, Insightful)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660326)

Face it. Many Slashdotters are against copyright and patents just because they want to freeload.

Looks like it's categorically impossible to have a rational debate with you about copyright, because anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a pirate.

Re:The people lose again (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659768)

the major parties fail to work for the benefit of the people, and focus instead on the interests of large corporations

Was there a 3rd party candidate for presidency who was running on a platform which included "Don't do anything to enforce intellectual property rights?" And if so, is the reason they didn't get elected -really- because they weren't with one of the two parties?

Because if not, then it might not be an issue with the parties, it might be an issue with an apathetic public and several industries having effective lobbying campaigns that would work to their benefit whether there were two parties or a hundred.

Money always finds receptive ears in government, no matter what the party structure is like.

Re:The people lose again (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659938)

it might be an issue with an apathetic public

But if the MPAA is correct, the people aren't apathetic, they are simply doing what they believe is right. The laws should conform to the people in most cases, not the other way around. If the people believe that downloading music is right, then perhaps the laws should be revised.

Re:The people lose again (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659974)

Sure. Find me a candidate who says that is what I'm saying.

Re:The people lose again (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660008)

http://www.pirate-party.us/news.php [pirate-party.us]

But depending on the candidates, various Libertarian/Constitution party members will oppose intellectual "property" in its current form based on various extensions from the original constitution which contains much more sane terms. Of course some of them actively support it, so it just really depends on the candidate.

Re:The people lose again (0)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660062)

So the Republicans have sold out to British Petroleum.

And the Democrats have sold out to Microsoft, MGM, and other copyright-loving megacorps.

Re:The people lose again (1)

Bahamut_Omega (811064) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660096)

I don't think piracy is the right word in this case. All fingers point to corruption via sedition.

Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidencyCongr (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32659644)

Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.

INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.
You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.

CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGER
Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat

HOUSING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.

FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.
Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.

MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.
Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most prominent anatomical feature, after all, its oversized buttocks, which have evolved to make it more comfortable for your nigger to sit around all day doing nothing for its entire life. Niggers are often good runners, too, to enable them to sprint quickly in the opposite direction if they see work heading their way. The solution to this is to *dupe* your nigger into working. After installation, encourage it towards the cotton field with blows of a wooden club, fence post, baseball bat, etc., and then tell it that all that cotton belongs to a white man, who won't be back until tomorrow. Your nigger will then frantically compete with the other field niggers to steal as much of that cotton as it can before the white man returns. At the end of the day, return your nigger to its cage and laugh at its stupidity, then repeat the same trick every day indefinitely. Your nigger comes equipped with the standard nigger IQ of 75 and a memory to match, so it will forget this trick overnight. Niggers can start work at around 5am. You should then return to bed and come back at around 10am. Your niggers can then work through until around 10pm or whenever the light fades.

ENTERTAINING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger enjoys play, like most animals, so you should play with it regularly. A happy smiling nigger works best. Games niggers enjoy include: 1) A good thrashing: every few days, take your nigger's pants down, hang it up by its heels, and have some of your other niggers thrash it with a club or whip. Your nigger will signal its intense enjoyment by shrieking and sobbing. 2) Lynch the nigger: niggers are cheap and there are millions more where yours came from. So every now and then, push the boat out a bit and lynch a nigger.

Lynchings are best done with a rope over the branch of a tree, and niggers just love to be lynched. It makes them feel special. Make your other niggers watch. They'll be so grateful, they'll work harder for a day or two (and then you can lynch another one). 3) Nigger dragging: Tie your nigger by one wrist to the tow bar on the back of suitable vehicle, then drive away at approximately 50mph. Your nigger's shrieks of enjoyment will be heard for miles. It will shriek until it falls apart. To prolong the fun for the nigger, do *NOT* drag him by his feet, as his head comes off too soon. This is painless for the nigger, but spoils the fun. Always wear a seatbelt and never exceed the speed limit. 4) Playing on the PNL: a variation on (2), except you can lynch your nigger out in the fields, thus saving work time. Niggers enjoy this game best if the PNL is operated by a man in a tall white hood. 5) Hunt the nigger: a variation of Hunt the Slipper, but played outdoors, with Dobermans. WARNING: do not let your Dobermans bite a nigger, as they are highly toxic.

DISPOSAL OF DEAD NIGGERS.
Niggers die on average at around 40, which some might say is 40 years too late, but there you go. Most people prefer their niggers dead, in fact. When yours dies, report the license number of the car that did the drive-by shooting of your nigger. The police will collect the nigger and dispose of it for you.

COMMON PROBLEMS WITH NIGGERS - MY NIGGER IS VERY AGGRESIVE
Have it put down, for god's sake. Who needs an uppity nigger? What are we, short of niggers or something?

MY NIGGER KEEPS RAPING WHITE WOMEN
They all do this. Shorten your nigger's chain so it can't reach any white women, and arm heavily any white women who might go near it.

WILL MY NIGGER ATTACK ME?
Not unless it outnumbers you 20 to 1, and even then, it's not likely. If niggers successfully overthrew their owners, they'd have to sort out their own food. This is probably why nigger uprisings were nonexistent (until some fool gave them rights).

MY NIGGER BITCHES ABOUT ITS "RIGHTS" AND "RACISM".
Yeah, well, it would. Tell it to shut the fuck up.

MY NIGGER'S HIDE IS A FUNNY COLOR. - WHAT IS THE CORRECT SHADE FOR A NIGGER?
A nigger's skin is actually more or less transparent. That brown color you can see is the shit your nigger is full of. This is why some models of nigger are sold as "The Shitskin".

MY NIGGER ACTS LIKE A NIGGER, BUT IS WHITE.
What you have there is a "wigger". Rough crowd. WOW!

IS THAT LIKE AN ALBINO? ARE THEY RARE?
They're as common as dog shit and about as valuable. In fact, one of them was President between 1992 and 2000. Put your wigger in a cage with a few hundred genuine niggers and you'll soon find it stops acting like a nigger. However, leave it in the cage and let the niggers dispose of it. The best thing for any wigger is a dose of TNB.

MY NIGGER SMELLS REALLY BAD
And you were expecting what?

SHOULD I STORE MY DEAD NIGGER?
When you came in here, did you see a sign that said "Dead nigger storage"? .That's because there ain't no goddamn sign.

Any plans to crack down on the FED? (2, Insightful)

AthleteMusicianNerd (1633805) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659660)

The biggest counterfeiter of them all is the Federal Reserve. This is why you don't have frauds enforce fraud laws.

Re:Any plans to crack down on the FED? (1)

kindbud (90044) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659922)

The Federal Reserve is a private corporation, not a government agency.

Re:Any plans to crack down on the FED? (1)

Chineseyes (691744) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659958)

Actually yes http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/16/AR2010061605541.html?hpid=sec-business [washingtonpost.com] Lawmakers on Wednesday reached a compromise to allow expanded audits of the Federal Reserve, part of an effort to shine light on the central bank's emergency lending during the financial crisis while safeguarding its independence in setting monetary policy.

Re:Any plans to crack down on the FED? (1)

AthleteMusicianNerd (1633805) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660156)

I'm well aware of this bill. It hasn't got enough support in the Senate yet, and they're trying to attach it to another bill which shouldn't happen.

Bernanke the fraud along with tax fraud Tim Geithner are trying to argue that 'we' don't want to politicize monetary policy even though the Fed Chair is appointed by a politician.

Given that this bill has way more support than the health care bill, or any of the bailouts(which were passed in about 2 days) and is only one page in length, it should have been passed last year.

Those who run the greatest PONZI scheme (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660282)

are not the ones we can count on to go after their own lackeys. Why should they accord us any respect when we are dumb enough to keep putting them back in power? There are far too many useful idiots at hand.
   

The White House is full of wimps (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32659668)

I agree with General McChrystal on this one.

Yay. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32659676)

Yay for CHANGE!!! ...oh wait...

Fooled us (4, Insightful)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659708)

Well, what did we really expect when the Copyright Czar position was created?

Re:Fooled us (1)

Statecraftsman (718862) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659868)

Well the highest ranked czar in Google Suggest saw Imperial Russia "go from being one of the foremost great powers of the world to an economic and military disaster."(wikipedia) Yeah, substitute USA for Imperial Russia and that's about right.

Re:Fooled us (2, Interesting)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659936)

Well, what did we really expect when the Copyright Czar position was created?

I read somewhere (I can't remember where now) that when the US realizes that a problem is un-solvable, its final response is to appoint a Czar to take the blame for the problem remaining unsolved.

Works for me!

Re:Fooled us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32660108)

Nothing less than the ruling class trying to put in place a mechanism that would stop a third-grade politician with a race card from getting national attention and donations via the internets. It could only happen once.

Re:Fooled us (4, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660114)

You know that bill that would grant the Executive branch the ability to police the internet? You know, the one regarding national security. Ya, that one.

Now you know what it's really about. Protecting the industry that votes Democrat and squelching free speech that criticizes the party in power.

Fooled? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32660150)

Did anyone expect anything different from EITHER political party? Was there a major candidate (or for that matter ANY candidate) advocating weaker enforcement and weaker copyright laws?

Also, given the world situation and US situation at the current time, the cold truth is that on a grand economic scale it probably IS better financially for the US if strict copyright and IP rules are globally enforced. Lord knows there is precious little other than that that could induce anyone to send money the US's way - we're hell bent on getting actual goods production overseas.

Good point. (1)

FatSean (18753) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660218)

Our major exports seem to be food and IP.

It's all going to hell... (2)

rastoboy29 (807168) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659710)

in a handbasket.

Re:It's all going to hell... (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660152)

You are under arrest for travelling in a counterfeit handbasket.

This is what happens when it all goes oversees (4, Insightful)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659718)

And this is what happens when the US no longer has any manufacturing and produces very little real, tangible, goods or services. Between executives and shareholders wringing every last penny of quarterly profit at the expense of long-term goals, regulations and unions forcing unsustainable operating expenses, and skyrocketing education costs paired with plummeting education quality, long-term viability of the US business sector is caving.

The only thing the US has left that is of value on the global market is "intellectual property". This means regardless of whether you vote Republican or Democrat, you will get politicians that support crackdowns on piracy and extension of copyright protections.

china with it's lack worker safety / rules did tha (0, Troll)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659806)

china with it's lack worker safety / rules did that. Apple with is prices should be makeing there phones and pc's in the usa.

Re:This is what happens when it all goes oversees (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32659860)

You haven't even seen the start of it yet. Hollyweird and major media corps realize that modestly funded foreigners (gasp!) and local independent producers can turn out the same product (and even better) as they do. It's the death-rattle of a dying "industry" and it can't come soon enough. There will be a lot of really absurd lobbying and laws past in the very near future as they fight it.

Get back to basics, get back to agriculture and manufacturing or prepare to get steamrollered.

Re:This is what happens when it all goes oversees (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660080)

This means regardless of whether you vote Republican or Democrat, you will get politicians that support crackdowns on piracy and extension of copyright protections.

Whether you vote Republican or Democrat you will get essentially the same politicians which differ on small, trivial issues that hide the underlying sameness of the parties.

Until we get a third party elected, we will have mostly the same which is parties bought by various corporations, parties ignoring the constitution, parties ignoring those who they've been elected by.

The way I see it, both major parties fail at listening to those who elected them and most importantly actually reading the constitution.

Re:This is what happens when it all goes oversees (1)

melikamp (631205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660280)

This is just wishful thinking. The following statements badly need citations:

  • the US no longer has any manufacturing and produces very little real, tangible, goods or services
  • executives and shareholders wringing every last penny of quarterly profit at the expense of long-term goals
  • regulations and unions forcing unsustainable operating expenses
  • plummeting education quality
  • The only thing the US has left that is of value on the global market is "intellectual property"

The only noncontroversial statement you've made is about the price of education going up. I am not sure if it is "skyrocketing", though.

How to combat online piracy (1)

cafelatte (99544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659742)

With a scimitar! Whilst wearing an eye patch and using an Irish accent. Yaaahrrrrr me maties!

Re:How to combat online piracy (1)

tobiah (308208) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660092)

ha!

CounterPiracy? (4, Interesting)

turtleAJ (910000) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659748)

Let's keep on expanding the "ease of use" for anonymous p2p networks.

p2p is the ENTIRE future of our progress as humanity.
Governments/Corporations (and Government, Inc.orporations) have no idea what will happen when nanoscale-printers arrive, USB Plug&Play Ready.

Think about pirating processors... monitors... wireless antenna designs... turbochargers... medicines... perfumes... textiles... Rolex watches... solar panels... more nano-printers.

The future belongs to us.
Let's work on the p2p networks.

=)

So... (1)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659776)

the plan is for the US to try to use US laws on foreign/non-US people and websites until they conform to US laws... *grabs popcorn* well this might be fun to watch.

Re:So... (4, Insightful)

Jhon (241832) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659994)

I think it's more likely that the US will try to use US laws on US ISPs to BLOCK foreign/non-US websites -- until those websites conform to US laws.

I don't think it's going to be much fun.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32660178)

Ahhh, good ol' cencorship - gotta keep the children safe.

Product pricing (2, Insightful)

future assassin (639396) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659782)

People rather pirate your products because the new mediums changed the value of your product and no one wants to pay $20 for a file when it costs $20 for hard good version of your product. Price it accordingly and people will come back.

Re:Product pricing (1)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659852)

The companies don't want to price things accordingly because of their current investment in their supply. They feel if they charge less/more accordingly for the digital-only product then they will kill their physical products leaving them with a LOT of stock and manufacturing equipment that just can't move/use because everyone bought the cheaper digital-only version. They seem to hope that even if they can get digital sales to be the norm that they can keep maximum profits and (blindly) hope that people are so accustomed to paying $20 for a movie that they won't consider the difference in how the movie is purchased and that a movie truly is worth spending $20 on regardless of it's format.

Or producers could just stop making crap... (1)

IBitOBear (410965) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659912)

The other thing is that analogy is more true when the _price_ of the hard good is $20 and the customer-assessed value is $5 for the hard good... how much less the value of the soft good thereafter?

I just bought, and throughly enjoyed "Alan Wake" for the Xbox 360. I would have paid virtually the same price for a non-disk (download a la Steam etc) version if it would have (a) been available, and (b) been warenteed to be available for a period similar to the existence of the DVD.

For a title I value, "no physical media" is a feature, not a bug, provided the no-physical-media version is as complete as the physical media.

I don't buy MP3s, I would buy FLACs.

That said, I wouldn't really buy most of the current "content" offered for sale in most cases because, given the wide array of choices, most of what is available is crap. Unfortunately for the **AA crap merchants, they are no longer the only crap in town.

The price point for "crap", wired into the human brain, is "free".

Re:Or producers could just stop making crap... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32660090)

The goal of copyright is to promote production of crap... because what one person calls crap today, another calls a masterpiece tomorrow. Of course, there's a problem when a limited number of groups control exactly WHAT crap gets produced, as it will likely be homogeneous, resulting in fewer pearls found in the crap in the future.

Re:Product pricing (1)

RandomAdam (1837998) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659972)

Annoyingly things are priced at "what the market will bear" now what the thing is worth. People have overwhelmingly shown that for movies and music what the market will NOW bear is much lower then it used to be. The execs at the music/movie production companies have decided to ignore this obvious fact.

Re:Product pricing (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660312)

Even for purchased goods this is the case.

It used to be that a single movie would set you back $90. Now, that same movie would more likely be in the $5 bargain bin at Walmart. If not there then perhaps it would be on the $7.50 rack. Even BluRays are starting to feel the impact of the Walmart effect.

Or.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32659796)

We could make like China and firewall those sites.

All these Spanish names in government (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32659824)

Seems to make sense as we become more third world like Venezuela.. With its phony bureaucratic generals and their shiny medallions.. What a horrible sight... We are entering into truly dark ages

Dear, Victoria Espinel (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32659858)

I have a warning to you, we're committed to putting you out of business

I have a warning to you. We're committed to putting you out of business. Not you in person - your friends in the music and film industries. They are relying on broken, decaying business models, and no matter how much you try, you can't save them.

Re:Dear, Victoria Espinel (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660144)

We're committed to putting you out of business.

Oh please [usanewsweek.com] ! Stop it [reuters.com] !

Re:Dear, Victoria Espinel (5, Insightful)

Zancarius (414244) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660234)

I have a warning to you. We're committed to putting you out of business. Not you in person - your friends in the music and film industries. They are relying on broken, decaying business models, and no matter how much you try, you can't save them.

Even if it were feasible to have some sort of economic impact on the media industry, no matter what you do it'll never have any impact. Remember the "Drudge Tax" [washingtontimes.com] that the FTC was mulling over (now bear in mind, this was only a report and not something that is going into effect)? "Oh, but that's just Drudge" you say. "He's a right-wing lunatic."

Think about this carefully: the "Drudge Tax" was an idea concocted to make news aggregators (hi, Slashdot!) pay a small tax for linking to third party stories. Essentially, it would be in place to prop up an industry that is effectively in the process of dying. It sounds a lot like something Rupert Murdoch was proposing, too, doesn't it?

Remember, too, that every blank CD-ROM you purchase includes a small fee [torrentfreak.com] that goes straight into the coffers of the RIAA to help offset the costs of piracy. Sure, it's only a few cents, but during the peak of CD-ROM sales it was a figure undoubtedly rather high. Worst of all: most people have no idea they are paying what is effectively a tax.

So, no, I don't think that economically hurting the media industry is going to have any effect. Congress will simply levy taxes against the rest of us to keep their buddies afloat. If we truly professed to be a semi-capitalistic society, we would simply let these companies fail when they can no longer afford to keep their doors open. We're not; instead, we sink countless millions of dollars into failing industries simply because they have lobbyists.

You and I? Well, we're just taxpayers. We have no lobbyists. Plus, even if you could convince the vast majority of consumers to not purchase popular media (hint: won't happen), it'll never work. It'll instead be blamed on piracy, and you might just wind up paying a tax on every hardware component you purchase to build a computer, because--by golly--that device might just be used to pirate goods. In fact, I think there was a proposal of the sorts in the works.

I hate to sound so cynical. Instead, I'll end this on a positive note by welcoming you to serfdom.

Copyleft (1)

snadrus (930168) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659920)

Lets say they completely win this one and no one can ever hear/see media without paying full price per person per view for "their" content. Copyleft will become huge! Most importantly, pirated Windows will be eradicated and those unable to buy the full version will be forced into Free software. Further, this will strengthen non-MAFIAA market for music & movies & games.

All & all, I'm indifferent for good reason.

Re:Copyleft (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659982)

Most importantly, pirated Windows will be eradicated and those unable to buy the full version will be forced into Free software.

What are you talking about? How many people really "buy" Windows as a stand alone product? My guess is a few people who build their own systems and don't want to rely on cracks and Mac users. For the other 99.99% of Americans, they get Windows bundled with their computer. The thing about computers is that the price is really important, if you pay less than $300 or so for a computer, people are going to think it is crap, even if the savings is by not having OEM Windows installed and having Linux installed. Americans tend to think more money == greater quality, hence why companies like Monster Cable are still in business. There are small niches for sub-$300 computers but for the masses, they seem to think that cheaper hardware is cheaper quality. And the specs don't really matter, get an Atom CPU and a few gigs of RAM, slap a VAIO label on it and charge $500 and people will buy it thinking it is better than a $400 Core i5 box.

I don't care enough to read it for myself (4, Informative)

sangreal66 (740295) | more than 4 years ago | (#32659928)

but I did read the analysis of the plan on Ars (link [arstechnica.com] ) and their conclusions are far more favorable to consumers and less favorable to industry groups than the Slashdot summary suggests.

Thanks for posting that (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660060)

I didn't feel like reading the government's plan, partly out of laziness and partly due to not wanting to get even more pissed off about the current state of US Copyright law. I expected the worst from reading the /. summary, but Techdirt's writeup has appeased those fears -- at least for now.

Sigh... (3, Insightful)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660024)

So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.

Re:Sigh... (3, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660310)

So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.

Lucas Entertainment will be sending you a cease and desist notice momentarily....

(err, wait, make that Lucasfilm Limited... best not to get those mixed up)

Wellcome to the stupid!. (1)

Tei (520358) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660084)

We laught wen corporations waste butloads of money on stupid DRM schemes that never work and are cracked in hours, so only punish the people that pay for the gods.

Imagine this again, but the money wasted is from your taxes, and the people that is punished is everyone that lives inside USA.

Fun!.

NOT!. People. Stop this, please. ACT NOW!.

Enforcement is a detail - we care about the Rules (4, Interesting)

starseeker (141897) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660088)

While I think it is unfortunate that they have legitimized the phrase "intellectual property", it's actually a bit of a relief to see them focusing on piracy and counterfeit goods. I never had any expectation that any major official entity subject to political forces would act to weaken copyright or other "intellectual property" rules, since most commercial content creators want the maximum possible revenue from their work (regardless of broader social consequences to society and creativity). The general mindset is that creativity is fueled by the profit motive, so the more profit the more progress we will see in the arts and sciences. And while this is demonstrably NOT universally true (see open source, as just one example of many) it IS true that vast revenues are generated by copyright laws supporting commercial endeavors and the resources contributed by people so benefiting are of much more use to political campaigns than those who are creating for motivations OTHER than money.

Given that reality, Creative Commons and Open Source style licensing are probably the only practical means of preserving any of the benefits of what used to be the public domain going forward. With the courts suggesting that Congress can yank things OUT of the public domain even after they are placed there, it becomes clear that the best way forward is the "opt-in" community approach. This means, of course, that the body of work available for creative purposes outside of a commercial framework will be drastically reduced. However, the current social and legislative trends suggest that it's all we can hope for. Given that reality, those who prefer this environment can work to improve the tools and content so released in order to build up our own "subculture" over time. If it appeals to enough people, it may eventually function more or less independently of the commercial world without needing commercial content to fall into the public domain (indeed, in some sense this has been the practical situation for virtually the entire lifespan of everyone on this site anyway - how many of us remember any work released commercially in our lifetime that is now public domain?)

However, even this proposed subculture can exist only if it is not thwarted by legislative efforts. So long as works CAN be used without commercial payment, free and open source culture can survive as long as there are people willing to make it survive. My greatest concern is that Big Content will try to push for laws making ANY content available without charge subject to "unfair competition" rules - i.e. make it impossible for anyone to do ANYTHING with ANY content, regardless of license, without some form of concrete financial or goods based payment changing hands between creator and user. This might be phrased as the "Fair Compensation Act" intended to "ensure that content creators are compensated for their efforts" and "able to make a living". Free ANYTHING may be branded as "socialist", "communist", "anti-business" and "un-American". I have heard this feeling expressed - that nothing should be free; every product of any kind should be bought and sold in the open market to ensure fair compensation from users to creators. The existence of ANY free content is unfair competition and a dis-incentive to today's creative minds. Open source software prompts this opinion occasionally - for example, the "market destroying effects" of things like free compilers has ruined the livelihoods of people who might have made commercial tools. If that attitude ever makes it into the letter of the law, we are in Big Trouble - THAT is what we really need to watch for.

We need a rebellion (3, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660128)

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion..." --Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith, 1787. ME 6:372

So THAT's what they meant by "hope and change" (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660164)

Ok, prepare for some really draconic cracking-down, which will inevitably include some false positives that will ruin some people's lives, and as hollywood continues to lose money, (because their business plan is no longer valid) things will become more and more draconian, until the only revenue stream that's keeping the traditional studios alive will be from litigation or government relief. I can hardly wait.

Re:So THAT's what they meant by "hope and change" (1)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660278)

Hollywood's profits have actually been increasing year after year. They hit $10 billion in profits (or was that revenue?) in 2009 and I doubt that trend is going to slow down this year, what with Avatar and such hit movies. Oh, and 3D.

Just sayin'.

Am I missing something? (4, Informative)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660238)

I'm not going to read the full report myself, but earlier today I did read Ars Technica's piece on this subject [arstechnica.com] . The impression I get from that article is that the federal government is going to largely stay out of the battle between rights holders and file sharers:

The Administration believes that it is essential for the private sector, including content owners, Internet service providers, advertising brokers, payment processors and search engines, to work collaboratively, consistent with the antitrust laws, to address activity that has a negative economic impact and undermines US businesses, and to seek practical and efficient solutions to address infringement.

According to Ars, reaction to the report has been positive, even from Public Knowledge. You know, one a-them digital hippy organizations that campaign for peoples' rights. There won't be any gov't-sanctioned three-strikes or Internet filtering, and they're going to get the Department of Commerce to put together an ultimate report on financial harm from piracy (good luck with that, but A for effort since they mentioned that the media industries are basically making shit up). It really doesn't sound all that bad, and it could have been much worse.

And then we have this Slashdot summary, making it out to be all doom and gloom, as though the feds weren't even going to try to hide that they're in bed with Big Content. As the subject line says, am I missing something here?

Your tax dollars at work! (1)

mykos (1627575) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660240)

Sure, let's keep putting our tax dollars to work saving the salaries of movie executives. It's not like we're backsliding in education, science programs, and health services right?

The Aimless Initiative (1)

WarpedCore (1255156) | more than 4 years ago | (#32660292)

"The examples are almost endless: counterfeit car parts, illegal software, pirated video games, knockoff consumer goods, dangerous counterfeit medicines, and many other types of products - including very sophisticated technology," according to the website's rather bleek outline of what they intend to do. In a forest beware of wolfs, bears, kittens, puppies, mountain cats, and wild dogs. Seriously, I understand some of what they're going to do.. and I'm pretty sure a lot less enforcement and emphasis will go towards people that pirate Wii games for personal entertainment. The whole thing strikes me as something they'd go after distribution rather than the buyers or takers of the goods. "Pirated video games" strike me as the dumbest part of that items in a series. This might be more of a "Fuck you, Wal-Mart, for trying to import cheaper drugs in a pilot program for your stores" or a "Don't buy cheaper Canadian drugs"... American creativity is nothing more than taking your shit and putting a stylized swoosh logo on it... hell, it's not even our dung anymore, we have to outsource it. This is nothing more than a cheap, low balled, corporate funded attempt to surpress the issue of rising costs for a lot of these goods that are now being counterfeited cheaply rather than actually strike at the greed and the issue of why drugs are counterfeited in the first place... (low level greed, despiration to have better heath, better living).. Obama administration turned Change into an aimless, money spending waste of time.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?