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!

US, China Working On Intellectual Property Rights

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the come-together dept.

United States 90

itwbennett writes "US Attorney General Eric Holder is visiting Beijing this week to discuss how China and the US can better coordinate efforts to stop intellectual property rights violations. 'One of the things that has happened in recent years is that counterfeiting has become a globalized industry,' said Christian Murck, the president of the American Chamber of Commerce in China. To effectively shut down these operations, cross-country efforts at strengthening global enforcement like Holder's visit to China are crucial, he added. Coinciding with Holder's visit, China announced it will launch a new national campaign to crack down on intellectual property rights violations. The campaign will take aim at the production and distribution of pirated goods such as DVDs and software products. Violations relating to registered trademarks and patents will also be targeted. The campaign will last for half a year. The commercial value of pirated software in China, at $7.5 billion, is second only to that in the US, where it is $8.3 billion, according to the Business Software Alliance and IDC."

cancel ×


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

FP (-1, Offtopic)

webjedi (106085) | more than 3 years ago | (#33965642)


Re:FP (3, Interesting)

webjedi (106085) | more than 3 years ago | (#33965732)

Sorry was my first...

Anyhow, as commentary, I doubt this will go much of anywhere... much like you can find pirated DVDs sold by crackheads in the NYC subway... trying to dissuade or even outright prevent IP theft, etc. from occurring in a place like China is absurd.

As I've found out in government, rules, laws and otherwise are there to make certain people feel better but rarely do they help or actually enforced universally and without bias. Sorry... just feeling a little malaise at this point.

Re:FP (0, Flamebait)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 3 years ago | (#33965882)

Here's a way to make sure it gets enforced:
Any attempt to sell counterfeit goods in another country, shuts down trade with the offending country and gives the copyright owning country the right to sink that country's trade vessels.

Bet that would step up enforcement in a hurry.

Re:FP (2, Funny)

webjedi (106085) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966010)

So by logic then, I think the release of the new Battleship film should lend itself to an interesting scenario....

Chinese (but Nigerian 409 flagged) cargo vessel carrying pirated copies of the Battleship movie, filmed in VHS-C and upscaled on an iMac knockoff with a pirated copy of iMovie in the nearest combination opium-den multiplex, gets sunk by a U.S. Cruiser outside of the Port of Los Angeles... damn, you sunk my Battleships?!

Just sayin'

Re:FP (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968166)

So, if someone in the USA makes counterfeit jeans for example (or software, or etc.) and sells it to someone in Iran, the country of Iran can sink our trade vessels? OH you meant only the USA can do those things...I see.

Not even humorous, just blind, narcissistic flag waving.

Re:FP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33972244)

Did you eat a lot of lead paint as a child?

Re:FP (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 3 years ago | (#33976304)

Actually, no, I'm perfectly fine with Iran sinking our trade vessels in their waters if they're carrying counterfeit goods.

Thus putting back to work the 23% of Americans currently unemployed, all in searching cargo containers for counterfeit goods before they leave the country.

Re:FP (2, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966174)

Eh. I disagree.

If China chose to crackdown on illegal DVD sellers, they could do it just as effectively as the US did it (DMCA makes it illegal), but with the additional punishment of serving hard time in the Chinese version of the Gulag.

China simply doesn't want to. They are like the US in the 1800s, with very little protection for foreign authors.

Re:FP (1)

Mephistophocles (930357) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966830)

Agree - China's interest is in selling to the US - they have little or no concern whatsoever about goods received from the west, especially those as industrially useless as entertainment (except if it violates state dogma, of course). These talks are utterly meaningless.

Re:FP (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#33965830)

Prepare for a lawsuit by Anonymous Coward for violating his IP for first posts.

Re:FP (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33967982)

And by Tim Berners-Lee and George Lucas for his username...

Re:FP (2, Funny)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 3 years ago | (#33965922)

WTF!? First post getting modded up? The world is coming to its end ...

one sided? (2, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#33965660)

Coincidental timing after China's latest strangling of rare earths, yes?

Re:one sided? (4, Insightful)

paeanblack (191171) | more than 3 years ago | (#33965774)

Coincidental timing after China's latest strangling of rare earths, yes?

It just means that China is now doing significant in-country R&D and authorship that they have a vested interest in protecting.

Pre-1900, the US was the same way. We couldn't give two shits about the European IP we were constantly ripping, and it pissed off plenty of European countries. Once we really started developing stuff in-country, our IP laws suddenly grew teeth.

History repeating itself itself.

Re:one sided? (1)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 3 years ago | (#33965810)

It just means that China is now doing significant in-country R&D and authorship that they have a vested interest in protecting.

Vested interest if it's THEIR invention.

Re:one sided? (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966044)

Indeed, I rather think China will play favorites and let its own rip others off, but not extend the same invitation.

Re:one sided? (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#33993240)

Hello schoolyard. How come we humans have managed to do so much, yet have economic and political behaviors that, at best, seems to be maybe one step away form a hill of moneys?

Re:one sided? (4, Insightful)

Dutch Gun (899105) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966064)

Coincidental timing after China's latest strangling of rare earths, yes?

It just means that China is now doing significant in-country R&D and authorship that they have a vested interest in protecting.

Pre-1900, the US was the same way. We couldn't give two shits about the European IP we were constantly ripping, and it pissed off plenty of European countries. Once we really started developing stuff in-country, our IP laws suddenly grew teeth.

History repeating itself itself.

The history is accurate, but not quite a reflection of current events IMO (although it may someday get there).

The counterfeiting is happening in China. If they were interested in stopping it, then they would do so. It's not like the counterfeiters are exactly hiding their production factories. This is China, knowing that the American politicians will never get tough on China, seeing as how they're financing most of our out-of-control national debt.

It's why nothing has come of thirty years of "Middle East Peace Talks". All the talking in the world won't do you any good if both parties at the table aren't really sincere.

Re:one sided? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966960)

It's why nothing has come of thirty years of "Middle East Peace Talks". All the talking in the world won't do you any good if both parties at the table aren't really sincere.

And both parties at the table must have the authority to make their side lay down the arms and support in the population to make such an agreement on their behalf. Sincerity is just one of the problems...

Re:one sided? (1)

nobodie (1555367) | more than 3 years ago | (#33970030)

OK, i'm on the ground here in PRC and the situation is a thousand times more complex than what you are thinking about. Your thoughts are, of course, conditioned by your environment and culture/ background. Try this on for size: where do D&G make there stuff? In China. Where? In Chinese factories that work insane hours every day producing goods by highly overworked, hungry, poor workers who drone away to get a paycheck. Ok, where do they produce the "pirates?" Oh damn it! the same factory, the same workers, the same day or week or month.

Is that piracy or the utilization of resources that are not being used at the moment. Yes, the company would prefer to make D&G stuff, it pays better, but they also cannot afford to produce for D&G at the price D&G wants unless they keep their workers going all the time and to do that they have to continue to produce, and what are they skilled at producing. I won't insult your intelligence by telling you the answer.

Who created the situation? You did, by demanding low prices on everything that you can buy. Your D&G goods are low price, they really are. They would be much more expensive if the cost of production went up by 30%. You want the real thing to be cheap, you demand that those prices stay "reasonable" and then complain that there are "pirates" that are cheaper still. Not fair.

Next, what is the difference between a "pirate good" and the "real thing"? Material, the base goods that are used to produce the item. The Chinese pirated iPhones, (yeah, made at Foxconn too) use cheaper this and cheaper that and everything is a little bit shabbier, but they look the same on day one if you don't scrutinize. Now I want you to have the fun of comparing the price of a Chinese pirate (say 100 dollars for an 1Phoney) and a "real" iPhone. and compare the dif in the cost of goods. hmmmmmmm. Now we know why "name brand makers" hate the pirates, are stinking rich and support the BSA numbers that are provided to make you believe that this piracy is hurting you, the consumer. It is not hurting you. The jobs are not being lost in the west.

Hopefully the problem of piracy has some extra dimensions for everyone now.

Re:one sided? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33970412)


The counterfeit shit that China produces of hi-brand items are in fact only counterfeits. Go look on the hi-brand companies websites or even their shareholder information and you'll find that these high brands don't even outsource to China. Louis Vuitton, Tiffany, as much as I think they are stupid companies, they don't produce anything in China.

On the other hand, Foxconn produces pretty much every goddamned hi-brand electronic device in the world (including Apple) they are not "also producing iphone counterfeits", any look-a-likes they might be making do not have iPhone markings on them, however the street peddlers and internet fraud rings add the markings.

The companies that are producing counterfeits are sifting through the garbage or paying off people who work for foxconn to steal the moulds needed to produce counterfeit parts and sell absolute shit that looks like an iPhone.

Then morons in the HK export these through websites to even more clueless people to stick on eBay and other online stores, but the products are shipped directly from China.

I mean, fuck, I bought a Nokia phone charger from a high-feedback eBay seller, and what I got was a counterfeit Nokia charger, and was like ... meh... charger... *took it to work and only used it to charge the phone where I could see it in case it caught fire*

Nokia doesn't make phones in China, they make them in Europe (and maybe South Korea.)

Cost of goods isn't everything. Yes you can make a luxury product out of cheaper materials, but then that stuff breaks a lot sooner. Clothes made in china (I'm looking at you Walmart) are so cheap and low thread count that it gives Hentai Anime legitimacy to the "tissue paper clothing" effect. Get it wet once and it's practically transparent.

For all you know cheaper materials maybe hazardous, look at the "lead in toys" and "fake milk" scare stories.

Then there are the counterfeit DVD's, these are also NOT made on the same factory line. Region Zero internet pirate knockoffs, or DVD "copied" to a lowerbit rate and made region zero so that they can be sold dirt cheap to everyone on the internet. Seriously, do you think an anime series with 26 episodes really fits on less than 7 (single layer) discs? No, what they are doing is the equivalent of selling a VHS tape in LP mode instead of SP, and stripping extra features.

Seriously, counterfeit shit from China is only purchased by people who don't care about quality and only care about either appearance/style or their wallet. Unfortunately that is the vast majority of people.

Re:one sided? (1)

Dutch Gun (899105) | more than 3 years ago | (#33978854)

Oddly enough, I think your post supports my thinking. China (we know we're talking about the PRC, ok?) simply doesn't view the counterfeiting as a significant problem to be dealt with. They likely blame the US for "demanding low prices", and so feel perfectly justified in manufacturing their own line of products with licensed designs to boost profits.

My assertion: China isn't really interested in stopping the counterfeiting - therefore, it will continue. Do you disagree?

Re:one sided? (1)

nobodie (1555367) | more than 3 years ago | (#34022268)

Very much in agreement. It is just a matter of how the word"pirate" and the idea of "piracy" has a particular negative connotation in the west while here it is not negative it is good business. Westerners only see "you are stealing from us" while Chinese see "you want the prices that our practices allow"> I see a larger picture where the consumerist culture is using these terms to keep people blinded to the reality of their chains.

Re:one sided? (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966606)

For the best really. Otherwise, China would still be a N. Korea like regime as under Mao Zedong.

To this day, they are ruled by the authoritative CCP regime. However, letting capitalism flourish will repair the damage that communism has created. At the very last, the people have more freedoms than they did 20 years ago, and far more than 50 years ago. In fact, should Xi Jinping get elected as President which looks very likely from a straw poll (from within the party of course), this could be very good news for the Chinese. He's more pro-western and business friendly. He also has a personal ax to grind against Mao Xedong. After all, his father spent 16 years in jail at Mao's request. But I digress.


tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33967804)

To this day, they are ruled by the authoritative CCP regime. [But] the people have more freedoms than they did 20 years ago

So I take it that China under the CCP is better than CCCP [] that tried communism first. But is it better than the CCP that runs Eve Online?


Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33969190)

CCP = Chinese Communist Party.

Re:one sided? (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#33993252)

So, replacing one set of oligarchs with another is repairing now?

Re:one sided? (3, Insightful)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966618)

I hate to bother your "we did it first" narrative, but a pre-technical agrarian nation in the 19th century versus the aggressive non-scarcity-bound largescale tech stealing of a high-tech power like China is are not even in the same ballpark. Not even the same league.

Re:one sided? (2, Interesting)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968202)

You forgot to add that China is a nuclear state as well, and controls the majority of rare metals required for new technologies, and has decided to not export them.

Re:one sided? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33970586)

Your description does not compute.

Re:one sided? (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 3 years ago | (#33967184)

Coincidental timing after China's latest strangling of rare earths, yes?

It just means that China is now doing significant in-country R&D and authorship that they have a vested interest in protecting.

Not yet. Or not yet enough to balance out what they plan to steal. No, in this case it just means that China knows they can continue to pretend to have some interest in protecting the IP of other nations while they maintain a massive, government funded practice in nearly every industry of blatantly stealing any IP they want. Making IP agreements is a great idea if you simply ignore them while your counterpart obeys each agreement and refuses to do anything about the fact that you don't.

Re:one sided? (1) (1137457) | more than 3 years ago | (#33967548)

Lived in China for a while and it's just a routine PR stunt (same as currency)... US gets angry and China takes a couple examples then it's back to business as usual. Seriously why would the Chinese government care if the middle class has fake Louis Vuitton purses, or watches Hollywood movies? There is little incentive for the government to stop pirates.

Re:one sided? (1)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966638)

C'mon, the world doesn't work that fast. The US has been intending to close the China copyright loop-hole for ages (also via WTO etc).

Re:one sided? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966662)

kinda, I'm not sure why China bothers other than to cozy up to their biggest customer. At the end of the day we've got Intellectual Property, they've got Rare Earth Metals.
Thing is, you can't even download or play those songs anymore without rare earth metals, so our IP will be totally useless.

Re:one sided? (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968526)

I think it's a rather apt demonstration of just how imaginary imaginary property really is.

You stop exporting IP, people just pirate it. You stop exporting rare earths...people suffer.

Unfortunately, China has the real stuff, and they know it.

Re:one sided? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33969058)

We should be talking with them about how most there economy is stimulated by us buying there low quality instant throw away garbage, maybe we should consider talking with them about bring industry back into the U.S., and start doing some real scientific work on alternatives to rare earth emtals for alternative energy rather then depending on something they have so much of while we have so little.

If I didn't know better China promoted technology that depended on rare earth minerals that they knew they could control. We either depend on the middle east for rare earth oil or depend on China for rare earth minerals or we innovate and say they hell with dependencies.

[citation needed] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33965708)

The campaign will last for half a year. The commercial value of pirated software in China, at $7.5 billion, is second only to that in the U.S., where it is $8.3 billion, according to the Business Software Alliance and IDC.

[citation needed]

Re:[citation needed] (1)

Samalie (1016193) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966056)

Depends on the statistic actually...

The BSA REALLY sucks ass at the lost revenue/lost jobs/lost economy/etc, because they assume that all pirated software is a lost sale at a 1:1 ratio, which is complete unwarranted bullshit.

On the other hand, they don't seem to suck at coming up with a retail value of pirated software currently in use in the wild. In those numbers...they tend to be rater accurate.

Commercial value != lost sales...but it would appear this time around they're only looking at commercial value.

Re:[citation needed] (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 3 years ago | (#33967700)

Even worse... I recall hearing (from here..?) that any machine not running legit windows (say, running linux) is assumed to be running cracked windows. Pretty bent way of doing things.

I might be mistaken, I thought that was the BSA though.

what's in it for China? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33965724)

Aside from paying lip service and just carrying on as usual, what's in this for China? I see no reason they should suddenly start giving a hoot about American IP. They only stand to gain from copying industrial designs, software, and so on.

Re:what's in it for China? (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966124)

Exactly what I was thinking.

Pirating stops when the US agrees to let China steal reproduce and sell any/all IP at will. Then the US government can concentrate on rooting out US music downloaders.

Re:what's in it for China? (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#33984038)

"Then the US government can concentrate on rooting out US music downloaders."

I think they should do just that. Maybe they should also get the army involved! These pirates that are 'stealing' profit that artists/businesses could potentially have had must be stopped at all cost!

Business Software Alliance (3, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#33965758)

Now these numbers are certainly reliable; they come from the BS Alliance!

Re:Business Software Alliance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33965828)

Which have been show time and again to be anything but reliable.

Re:Business Software Alliance (2, Insightful)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 3 years ago | (#33965854)

Bull Shit Alliance?

Re:Business Software Alliance (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966106)

Pretty much, yep. []

Priorities. (4, Insightful)

seeker_1us (1203072) | more than 3 years ago | (#33965800)

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is visiting Beijing this week to discuss how China and the US can better coordinate efforts to stop intellectual property rights violations.

As opposed discussing how to coordinate efforts to stop human rights violations.

Re:Priorities. (2, Insightful)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 3 years ago | (#33965834)

Maybe Holder doesn't want to irritate the most power like-minded regime in the region? :)

Re:Priorities. (2, Insightful)

dubbreak (623656) | more than 3 years ago | (#33965844)

As opposed discussing how to coordinate efforts to stop human rights violations.

Where's the money in that?

Re:Priorities. (1)

Faatal (1907534) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966052)

You seem to be under the impression that China cares.

Re:Priorities. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966248)

Are you kidding? He's going to be way too busy dealing with the important crimes like prosecuting Californians for smoking marijuana in their own homes to worry about little nits like basic human rights.

Re:Priorities. (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 3 years ago | (#33967386)

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is visiting Beijing this week to discuss how China and the US can better coordinate efforts to stop intellectual property rights violations.

As opposed discussing how to coordinate efforts to stop human rights violations.

Hey, the Intellectual Property rights holders are human, aren't they? Sounds like a human rights issue to me!

The genius of AND (1)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 3 years ago | (#33967846)

I wasn't aware that the US had a binary choice, in which it could either:

  • Discuss human rights issues with China, or
  • Discuss a framework for copyright, trademark, and patent law with China

Remember last November [] , and the discussions in May [] ?

Re:Priorities. Same old same old met the new boss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33968470)

The whole of western civilisation and law has allways been on the premise property has more rights than people. After all theres no alue attached to people.

Be careful what you wish for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33965804)

Here's hoping the U.S. is held accountable for knowingly encouraging human rights violations once China starts "cracking down" as they put it.

Fuck China and the US Government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33965832)

Why are we continually bending over backward in attempt to reign in the country of China? My conspiracy theory is this:

1) US and China agree to create new laws criminalizing previously legal behavior.

2) US helps China build 1000 new prisons over the next 10 years.

3) China fills prisons, this extending their slave labor force.

4) US and Chinese CEOs and government officials PROFIT!!!

And yes folks, I just solved the Underpants meme.

What the heck happened to the comment system? (1, Offtopic)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33965934)

Instead of displaying the messages, I'm only seeing Subjects/titles. I didn't change anything on my end (still set at classic index; low bandwidth).

Re:What the heck happened to the comment system? (3, Informative)

istartedi (132515) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966006)

I disabled "dynamic discussions" in my prefs, and the problem went away.

That might be coincidence though. Just as an experiment, try going into your prefs and just saving what's already there. What's a "dynamic discussion" anyway?

Re:What the heck happened to the comment system? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966080)

Of course if he can read your answer his problem is already solved ...

Re:What the heck happened to the comment system? (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966240)

Looks like a 'trick" to move people off the old function-over-form system to the new javascripted form-over-function system.
They probably reset the defaults and figured some number of people would just live with it.

Re:What the heck happened to the comment system? (1)

viking099 (70446) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966302)

Those kinds of tricks are fine for Google, where there's a ton of folks who don't care or won't notice (gmail UI changes and the left panel on the search results in particular), but I think it's kind of funny that they're trying it here, in a place that's known for users with strong DIY tendancies, grumpy users, and useless frippery-type changes.

It took me about a minute to get it back the way it should be, but I really wish they'd announce the changes and let us decide to check it out.

Re:What the heck happened to the comment system? (1)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966460)

At the very least, they should add a "revert to old comment style" link somewhere obvious (like just before the comments on each story)... as long as showing us the new style is quick and painless I won't complain (I'll have to settle for grumbling on this one).

Re:What the heck happened to the comment system? (1)

gozu (541069) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968496)

The same thing happened to me. I had to spend 5 minutes looking for the relevant option in preferences. SOmething went awry server-side I guess. I know I didn't change it.

Re:What the heck happened to the comment system? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33970450)

AC - no account - Iceweasel and Firefox 3 user. I have had had to stop using Classic discussion mode and now live with the sliders. This change was about a week ago. They fucked something up. Perhaps their revenue model is to make usage more difficult for ad-block using, non-registering a-holes like myself.

Sadly, I suspect incompetence is the real reason. : (

Re:What the heck happened to the comment system? (1)

matmota (238500) | more than 3 years ago | (#33983632)

Same here. I disabled the "dynamic" stuff and set the view to "classic" shortly after it was introduced, and today suddenly I have it in my screen.

Looks like a bug.

Bill O'Reilly: The Racist Factor (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33965952)

We know O'Reilly is a cocaine addict. That's just the beginning. Unless you're a newly hatched pod person you already know that I sincerely hope that this sends a strong message to people across the nation that Bill O'Reilly hates me for my determination and my aggressive stance for what is right. But let me add that "virulent" hardly seems like a strong enough word to describe O'Reilly. The following text regards my complaints of recent days against O'Reilly and his subtle but cranky attempts to initiate a reign of malign terror.

If O'Reilly could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to tip the scales in his favor. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that an armed revolt against O'Reilly is morally justified. However, I allege that it is not yet strategically justified. To be thoroughly candid, when a friend wants to drive inebriated, you try to stop him. Well, O'Reilly is drunk with power, which is why we must seek some structure in which the cacophony introduced by his cajoleries might be systematized, reconciled, and made rational. Pardon my saying so, but he occasionally shows what appears to be warmth, joy, love, or compassion. You should realize, however, that these positive expressions are more feigned than experienced and invariably serve an ulterior motive, such as to support hostile governments known for human rights abuses, wrongful imprisonment, and slavery.

So let me make it clear that O'Reilly sometimes has trouble convincing people that he can achieve his goals by friendly and moral conduct. When he has such trouble, he usually trots out a few patronizing misogynists to constate authoritatively that it is patriotic to combine the most sordid avarice with the most invincible hatred of the very people who tolerate and enrich O'Reilly. Whether or not that trick of his works, it's still the case that I obviously avouch that there are in fact many people who possess the intelligence, wisdom, talent, and ability to move as expeditiously as possible to establish democracy and equality. My goal is to locate those people and encourage them to help me convince foul criticasters to stop supporting O'Reilly and tolerating his insults.

O'Reilly is like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Pull back the curtain of demagogism and you'll see a feckless, splenetic swaggerer hiding behind it, furiously pulling the levers of ageism in a tactless attempt to infiltrate the media with the express purpose of disseminating baleful information. That sort of discovery should make any sane person realize that O'Reilly claims that the ancient Egyptians used psychic powers to build the pyramids. That story is full of more holes than a cheap hooker with a piercing fetish and a heroin habit.

Contrast, for example, O'Reilly's ebullitions with those of insincere grizzlers, and observe that there is no contrast. I, by (genuine) contrast, take the view that O'Reilly demands absolute and blind obedience from his encomiasts. If he didn't, they might question his orders to distract attention from more important issues. This unrelenting demand of obedience also implies that when I was younger I wanted to take personal action and provide light, information, and knowledge about O'Reilly's sophomoric pleas. I still want to do that, but now I realize that we were put on this planet to be active, to struggle, and to express our concerns about his stolid, superstitious orations. We were not put here to perpetuate the myth that he can convince criminals to fill out an application form before committing a crime, as O'Reilly might contend. O'Reilly has separate, oftentimes antipodal, interests from ours. For instance, he's intererested in labeling everyone he doesn't like as a racist, sexist, fascist, communist, or some equally terrible "-ist". In contrast, my interests—and perhaps yours as well—include telling people that O'Reilly is obviously under the influence of LSD or some other hallucinogenic. Why else would he warrant that he is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong?

I have a scientist's respect for objective truth. That's why I'm telling you that O'Reilly wants to replace law and order with anarchy and despotism. Who does he think he is? I mean, he will cheat on taxes by the next full moon. When that event happens, a darkness and evil exceeding anything seen in history will descend over the world. I can hope only that before it does, people will shatter the illusion that O'Reilly can help psychotic fugitives evade capture by the authorities and get away with it. Only then can we anneal discourse with honesty, clear thinking, and a sense of moral good. O'Reilly always cavils at my attempts to beat him at his own game. That's probably because if we contradict O'Reilly, we are labelled postmodernist blockheads. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms.

Maybe you, too, want to perpetuate myths that glorify immoralism, so let me warn you: O'Reilly is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in his own biases, gets into all sorts of daffy speculation, and then makes no effort to test out his speculations—and that's just the short list! His protégés have already started to instill a general ennui. The result: absolute vapidity, sniveling and unprofessional cacophony, lack of personality, monotony, and boredom. From what I know of his theatrics, he is saying essentially three things:

      1. Obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance.
      2. He's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread.
      3. The ideas of "freedom" and "exclusivism" are Siamese twins.

Obviously, all three of these are clearly foolish.

Although I can't say how well I'd do against O'Reilly in a nationally televised steel-cage death match, I can say that if I had to choose between chopping onions and helping him promote the sort of behavior that would have made the folks in Sodom and Gomorrah blush, I'd be in the kitchen in an instant. Although both alternatives make me cry, the deciding factor for me is that many scholars have already concluded that O'Reilly's self-fulfilling prophecies are highly pompous. Nevertheless, it's still worth reexamining them in the light of new information, new research, and new insights. Doing so is sure to reveal that O'Reilly has a glib proficiency with words and very sensitive nostrils. He can smell money in your pocket from a block away. Once that delicious aroma reaches O'Reilly's nostrils, he'll start talking about the joy of conformism and how we should avoid personal responsibility. As you listen to O'Reilly's sing-song, chances are you won't even notice his hand as it goes into your pocket. Only later, after you realize you've been robbed, will you truly understand that a day of reckoning is coming, and O'Reilly will be called to account. As an interesting experiment, try to point this out to him. (You might want to don safety equipment first.) I think you'll find that if you read O'Reilly's writings while mentally out of focus, you may get the sense that children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy candy at them. But if you read his writings while mentally in focus and weigh each point carefully, it's clear that he has had some success in altering laws, language, and customs in the service of regulating social relations. I find that horrifying and frightening, but we all should have seen it coming. We all knew that even O'Reilly's advocates are afraid that O'Reilly will deny the legitimacy of those who stand together and free people from the spell of cynicism that he has cast over them by next weekend. I have seen their fear manifested over and over again, and it is further evidence that O'Reilly's disrespectful attempt to construct a creative response to my previous letter was absolutely pitiful. Really, O'Reilly, stringing together a bunch of solecistic insults and seemingly random babble is hardly effective. It simply proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that thoughtful people are being forced to admit, after years of evading the truth, that I have been right. I was right when I said that a conclusion to which all of us would readily assent is that O'Reilly has OD'd on metagrobolism. I was right when I said that it makes perfect sense that O'Reilly doesn't want me to provide a positive, confident, and assertive vision of humanity's future and our role in it. And I was right when I said that some people think it's a bit extreme of me to declare a truce with him and commence a dialogue—a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that I will never give up. I will never stop trying. And I will use every avenue possible to make some changes here.

It is certainly the height of ironies that O'Reilly avers that the Earth is flat. As you can no doubt determine from comments like that, facts and Bill O'Reilly are like oil and water. From this perspective, he's a hard worker. O'Reilly works hard to prevent anyone from commenting on his rebarbative witticisms. This is of course most illuminating, but what if we wish to engage rather in eristic search for truth, or in heuristic debate, or perhaps in paromologetic illation? In my experience, O'Reilly's confreres have been seen producing nothing but filth. O'Reilly claimed he would take responsibility for this insidious behavior, but in fact he did nothing to fix matters or punish the culprits. This proves that purists may object to my failure to present specific examples of O'Reilly's ignominious principles. Fortunately, I do have an explanation for this omission. The explanation demands an understanding of how I proudly adopt this stand. Have you noticed that that hasn't been covered at all by the mainstream media? Maybe they're afraid that O'Reilly will retaliate by bringing discord, confusion, and frustration into our personal and public lives.

If you think that the most prudish dipsomaniacs you'll ever see should be given absolute authority to adopt approaches that have not been tested to try to solve problems that have not been well-defined then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what O'Reilly wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance such as that if you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem. You may be wondering why hectoring, ignorant stumblebums latch onto his protests. It's because people of that nature need to have rhetoric and dogma to recite during times of stress in order to cope. That's also why O'Reilly says that obscurantism is absolutely essential to the well-being of society. What balderdash! What impudence! What treachery! The recent outrage at Bill O'Reilly's jeremiads may point to a brighter future. For now, however, I must leave you knowing that one positive outcome of the Law of Unintended Consequences is that if we evaluate the tactics he has used against me then he won't be able to implement an intransigent parody of justice called "O'Reilly-ism".

China (1)

arcite (661011) | more than 3 years ago | (#33965958)

China is playing the west for a bunch of chumps.

Re:China (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966194)

You are correct. They are. And you know what? I don't feel the least bit of sympathy for us. We're swallowing it hook line and sinker. In the end, you get what you deserve, and if we're the kind of colossal idiots we appear to be, we *will* get what we deserve. In fact, we've already started to reap the rewards.

Re:China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966810)

What is this "we/us" business? Sure, you can argue the billions of sheeple deserve the extermination they're going to get at the hands of China, but how about us ten million or so who can actually see what's going on but are powerless to stop it; how is it fair that we'll be victims of that genocide too?

Re:China (2, Informative)

John Saffran (1763678) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966428)

Exactly right, what people don't realise is that china has a revanchist desire against the west for the past 150 years. The americans were not the main protagonists against them, but they represent the system. Suffice to say that the assumptions made by the US in engaging china don't agree with what the chinese themselves think:


China has long viewed American pre-eminence in the region as a historical accident and an aberration. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) feels enormously uncomfortable existing in a regional order that is based not just on open trade, freedom of the seas and rule-of-law, but also on a democratic community backed by American naval power and military alliances. Look through Chinese strategic documents over the past decade and around four-fifths are about how best to bind, dilute, circumvent or supersede American power and influence.

Rudd is correct to suggest that China has become a "major stakeholder" in the regional and global system. But the broad-brush approach by America and its partners in Asia has been to encourage China to be a "responsible stakeholder" as it rises – one that will increasingly uphold and strengthen the existing order rather than seek to challenge or subvert it. But the latter is precisely what Beijing is looking to do, even as it has been a significant beneficiary of the current system.

Washington erroneously assumes it can shape Chinese goals and purposes. While encouraging China to be a responsible stakeholder is seen as an end-game in the US, internal debates within China reveal that Beijing sees behaving as a responsible stakeholder as a way to bide its time while it builds what it terms Chinese "comprehensive national power."

The responsible stakeholder approach is designed to entrench China as a status quo power because it has been allowed to benefit from the current system. For example, China benefits enormously from the US naval role in the South China Sea, which helps trade and commerce to thrive by protecting trade routes. Yet while the US devotes ships, troops and money to these efforts, China benefits as a security free-loader in the region instead of a trusted contributor.

China has not become an entrenched stakeholder within the US-led region. Indeed, its disruptive claims to over four-fifths of the South China Sea have only intensified, rather than faded, as it continues to rise within the existing order. This approach assumes there is no alternative for emerging states but to compete within the existing open and liberal order.

The responsible stakeholder framework does not account for the fact that rising participants – especially genuinely powerful ones – can seek to gradually dismantle and redesign the current order from within. Subversion and "winning without fighting," rather than confrontation and contest, is the prudent Chinese strategy for undermining both the US and the strength of Washington’s security alliances and partnerships in Asia-Pacific.

The responsible stakeholder framework also assumes that Chinese interests and ambitions are elastic and can be molded according to the circumstances of China's rise. This argument ignores compelling historical and contemporary evidence that China is predisposed to seek leadership of Asia and to recast the regional order according to its preferences. After all, regaining its paramount place in the region is inextricable from reversing what Chinese history books describe as 150 years of humiliation at the hands of western and Japanese powers.

... []

Unfortunately there's many similarities between interwar Germany and China at present, including:

- Revanchism for past humiliations

- An internal myth of superiority. Both believed that they're predestined to be at the top of the pile.

- An increasingly jingoistic sentiment in the population fed by state propaganda

There's an increasingly explosive mix of factors in china that people would be fools to ignore.

Re:China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33969252)

They may be ok as long as they don't drink the Coke.

$8.3 Billion in the US? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966022)

(8.3 billion) / (658.99) is less than 13 million. Photoshop has to have been pirated more than 13 million times.

Re:$8.3 Billion in the US? (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966818)

I'm guessing those are per year.

Sure fire idea (3, Insightful)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966132)

Just replace the FBI warning at the beginning with the message, "this movie brought to you by the Dalai Lama".

Then sit back and watch the Chinese government crack down on pirated DVDs with a vengeance...

Re:Sure fire idea (3, Interesting)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968014)

Epic #backfire.

Yes, they'll crack down on the pirated DVDs, but they'll also crack down on the non-pirated DVDs, and you'll have to eat a billion pressings...

Re:Sure fire idea (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968644)

Nah, the number of non-pirated DVDs sold in China is so low it won't be a problem.

That's rich! (3, Insightful)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966188)

I don't believe for a second any agreement China comes to agree upon would be honored. They haven't respected the intellectual property of ANY foreign country for decades, and I don't think a stern talking-to from the 'richest' and 'most powerful' country in the world is going to help.

Re:That's rich! (1)

pipedwho (1174327) | more than 3 years ago | (#33967104)

Most of the people in the 'richest' and 'most powerful' country in the world don't seem to respect intellectual property either.

I can understand Trademark protections - and the Chinese government actually does respect those for the most part. However, with the majority of patents being ridiculously broad 'land grabs' and copyright growing from reasonable (ie. respectable) term lengths to effectively indefinite, I see no reason to lump all three of these things together and pretend they are problems of equal footing.

If anything, the problem is with the current western implementation of Patent and Copyright law.

Re:That's rich! (1)

hackingbear (988354) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968176)

Or their companies will be sued for patent violations by Western patent trolls for every other trivial feature they make. Fair game then?

Hooray!!! (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966218)

Another chance for China to tell us "FU" (by telling us that they're going to do something about this and not) and another chance for us to bend over and take it!

On the other hand, seeing how draconian stuff is getting with ACTA, maybe that's a good thing.

Tell us to FU? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33968454)

Easy solution. "Do what we want or we will default on our 10 trillion dollar debt and collapse your economy too." Financial nuclear war.

stop my sides hurt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33966270)

Oh man, this is the funniest thing I have read on /. all year.

China and "rights"? puh-leeze

The Quiet Invasion (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966768)

Beijing has been ass-deep in American IP lawyers for years.

Corporations - 2 : Human Beings - 0 (3, Insightful)

mykos (1627575) | more than 3 years ago | (#33966970)

Human rights take a back seat to copyrights.

At last, the USA and China can agree on something. (1)

GMFTatsujin (239569) | more than 3 years ago | (#33967082)

All citizens are criminals until proven wealthy.

Who leads China's Chamber of Commerce in America? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33967278)

Foo Kyu?

How to get rid of US debt??????? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33967732)

I figure if you do some hollywood accounting of the theft of american intellectual property a case could be made in the icj that china loses its right to claim the debt the USA owes to it as payment. Further infractions leading to more cost.

allow me to set myself up for disappointment (1)

OnePumpChump (1560417) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968500)

I hope the US has to make concessions to China on IP. I wish China would lead a push for a less restrictive IP regime, particularly for patents and copyrights. They're really the only country with the clout to oppose what the US has been doing.

Re:allow me to set myself up for disappointment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33970486)

The place I worked had a DMCA request using a Chinese patent. The staff were like "Is this for real?", Notes on the system basically say "Ignore it."

I've also seen DMCA requests for ... oh let me find it, it's a tonne of shits and giggles...

"Mobile Phone Watch", google this, every single site you see is selling counterfeits. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

The actual company that claims to own IP rights for this is Chinese. The counterfeits don't have certifications for use outside of china, so you're actually risking your health to use them... not that I don't think the original doesn't either.

Is the BSA figures with this BS? (1)

Mr.Fork (633378) | more than 3 years ago | (#33974932)

We all know how reliable the Business Software Alliance and IDC's piracy figures are [] ... in fact, according to The Economist [] they're totally BS. So why would China even believe its an issue to the point where they'll agree to IP agreements that are nothing more than protectionists movements by companies to make more money? Or is it lawyers trying to prove their worth in a company making an issue out of something they really have absolutely no control over? Can you really stop companies from underlicensing products by scaring them into going legit through government laws?

When I see this, I roll my eyes and keep on thinking what total BS all these laws really are. I mean, if I make a copy Windows 2008 SP2, I could go to jail for 5 years with a $250,000 fine. If I kill my neighbour with a crowbar in a fight, I could get a year or two sentence in jail. Is it me, or is something not quite right about this?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>