Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DOJ Ramping Up Crackdown On Copyright-Infringing Sites

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the let-joe-pesci-sort-'em-out dept.

Government 366

An anonymous reader writes "The Obama administration is just getting started in its mission to shut down rogue websites that illegally share copyrighted content such as movies and music. The White House's intellectual property czar, Victoria Espinel, said Monday that the Internet community should 'expect more of that' pre-emptive action as the administration ramps up its efforts to combat online copyright infringement — especially the illegal copying and sale of pharmaceutical drugs."

cancel ×

366 comments

viva le WIKILEAKS (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34463098)

Where's your 'land of the free now', conservafags?

Re:viva le WIKILEAKS (0, Troll)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463280)

Freedom isn't free and our laws are produced by a robust process of competitive bidding between plutocrats and corporations. Ergo, our laws make us perhaps the freest country ever!(and certainly Jesus' favorite...)

QED LIEberals!

Re:viva le WIKILEAKS (3, Funny)

Anarki2004 (1652007) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463316)

Freedom costs a buck-o-five dude

Re:viva le WIKILEAKS (1)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463776)

Freedom costs a buck-o-five dude

I downloaded the movie that came from... And don't call me dude.

Re:viva le WIKILEAKS (1)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463614)

I just hope the good erotica was uploaded with permission. Would hate to see that go.

Re:viva le WIKILEAKS (4, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463758)

You're talking out your ass, fuzzy. Freedom isn't free - you have that much right. However - your conservative minded friends are busy taking freedoms away from the common man. I'll remind you: copyright was NEVER MEANT to ensure that the owner could make a dollar. It was only intended to ensure that IF ANYONE made a coin or two from his work, then he should get part of it. Every bone head moron who thinks that beating the kid down the street to the copyright and/or patent office with something new should guarantee an income for life needs to pull their bone-heads out of their asses. Hey - Microsoft came to market first, with an easy operating system that any moron could use. That means what, exactly? That everyone in the world should pay Microsoft forever? What utter fucking BULLSHIT! Back in the day when patents and copyrights were limited to reasonable periods of time, everything that made Win 3.1 and the W32 crap work would be public today. That's right. The added bits and pieces that made the small jump from W32 up to Win98 would be coming up for expiration in about two or three years. (Fact is, Digital Research beat Microsoft to the W32 thing, which is exactly why Microsoft turned their big guns on DRDos) No - freedom isn't free. And, you'll remember that when the commoners are spilling your royal blood on Wall Street. Our laws are totally borked right now because your heros are crooked SOB's who buy the laws they want.

Next up (3, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463100)

Christ what next declaring another stupid war, like 'the war on drugs'. How long before they start to censor sites with political views not approved by the government, or blocking sites deemed 'risks to national security'. I really get tired of my country trying to police and control everything. What ever happened to wanting more freedom.

Re:Next up (0)

Squiddie (1942230) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463198)

Government mandated censorship in 3, 2, 1...

Re:Next up (3, Interesting)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463202)

How long before they start to censor sites with political views not approved by the government, or blocking sites deemed 'risks to national security'. I really get tired of my country trying to police and control everything. What ever happened to wanting more freedom.

That's quite a leap you're making. I'f you're really upset then why not write a letter to your congressman and/or donate to the EFF?

Re:Next up (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34463402)

I'f you're really upset then why not write a letter to your congressman ...

I find rubbing my lucky rabbit foot to be much more effective - and pleasant.

Re:Next up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34463572)

For the rabbit, as well?

Re:Next up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34463580)

EFF that.

Re:Next up (3, Insightful)

lostthoughts54 (1696358) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463740)

quite a leap? hardly so imo. This thought i think is verified in the internet kill switch debate. A button(essentially) to disable any website deemed harmful or infringing, if u think use of that will stop at copyright u are ignorant of politics and american history. Case and point= Wikileaks(i know we are all sick of hearing the name) they keep getting taken down based on a political reasons, not legal ones.

U dont lose rights, they are eroded away.

Re:Next up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34463752)

Haven't you followed the news on Wikileaks? They are already doing that. Google it or see twitter.com/wikileaks for more info.

Re:Next up (1)

AstrumPreliator (708436) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463910)

Well, I suppose we can wait and see what they do with Wikileaks...

Re:Next up (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463994)

I don't think its as far a leap as you might make it sound. If "Pre-Emptive" action gets too comfortable with internet laws, its not a far step to getting around regular warrant procedures.

Re:Next up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34463264)

Not approved by the government, like Wikileaks? Wanting more freedom is now illegal, sorry.

Re:Next up (5, Insightful)

Ancantus (1926920) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463302)

"Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record." ~ 1984 by George Orwell

They don't want more freedom (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34463390)

They don't want freedom for people that have views they don't agree with or if freedom might mean they might have to filter their own spam or be responsible for their own security.

Re:Next up (1)

luther349 (645380) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463418)

to late the whole wikileaks song and game.

Re:Next up (3, Interesting)

retech (1228598) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463426)

Too late Joe Lieberman has already proposed legislation to say that:

All gov't communications are classified. Leaking a classified document is an act of terrorism. Default to Patriot Act.

Give them a few years and we'll not be able to object to anything.

Re:Next up (2)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463550)

How you solve that is you don't vote for Joe Lieberman. Vote for someone who won't do that.

Re:Next up (1)

Fry-kun (619632) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463698)

Yeah, vote for Mickey Mouse - he doesn't have an agenda!

Re:Next up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34463810)

No, his agenda is for longer copyright durations.

Re:Next up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34463708)

And what if no-one is running who won't do that?

Re:Next up (2)

Schadrach (1042952) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463876)

Oh, someone certainly is, but they'll never get elected because the "voting for a third party candidate is throwing away your vote" meme is so firmly entrenched, and neither R nor D will ever run anyone who doesn't have that position.

Re:Next up (5, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463826)

Have you forgotten how the (un)Patriot act was passed? Remember the days after 9/11, while the Anthrax scare was really raging? Every sniveling, whining dog in Washington wanted action, immediately, to take the fear out of their timid little hearts. They ALL voted for the (un)Patriot act - liberals, conservatives, libertarians, male and female, black and white, straight and queer, big and little, it just didn't matter who or what they were. In fact, the (un)Patriot act alone makes the best single argument in favor of the conspiracy nuts who think it was an inside job.

Re:Next up (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463978)

How you solve that is don't let people like bin Laden think that blowing up buildings will work.

Re:Next up (3, Informative)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 3 years ago | (#34464098)

They ALL voted for the (un)Patriot act - liberals, conservatives, libertarians, male and female...

Uh, not all [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Next up (1)

MichaelKristopeit210 (1946192) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463664)

firearms expel objects as they always have.

who is "them"? who is "we"?

you are NOTHING

Re:Next up (1, Interesting)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463484)

Oh no, it is still a war on drugs since they are going after people that clone prescription drugs. See, our government gets no piece of the pie when people do that, so this is just a nice way for them to go after those places and say they are going after all copyright infringement. Remember, we now live in CSA (Corporate States of America). If it is not about money that is thrown to CSA, they won't bother

Re:Next up (2, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463526)

Why do you think that shutting down theives is the same thing as shutting down newspapers?

Seriously, the depth of cluelessness that surrounds this issue is abyssal.

The government protects MPAA and RIAA members against torrent sites. Given.

But if you were ever so industrious as to write something that was worth something, the government would protect you from the MPAA, the RIAA, and itself.

Re:Next up (5, Insightful)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463662)

Perhaps artists should look into either creating new work or getting a real job like the rest of us instead of expecting to get paid in perpetuity. Any work done should automatically go into the public domain after 30 years regardless of whether or not the artist is still living. Righs should also be non-transferable. Copyright is a contract between artists and society, they create work and we grant them a temporary monopoly on distribution, what's happened is they still have their monopoly but are refusing to let the work fall into the public domain. The market is adjusting accordingly.

Re:Next up (0)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463704)

Bullshit. the MPAA and RIAA, better known as the MafiAA, are a bunch of crooked thieves who defraud the real artists regularly.

Like So [salon.com] . Or perhaps see here [techdirt.com] . Or this one. [techdirt.com]

The government doesn't protect you for shit. It ought to be busy busting up the MPAA and RIAA as illegal monopolies, but it does nothing.

Re:Next up (1, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34464066)

If you didn't read the contract you signed when they bought your copyright from you, that's too bad for you, and a good example of where the government should keep its nose out of private individuals' business.

But if you can prove the RIAA or MPAA stole your stuff, you win:

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/07/business/fi-34293 [latimes.com]

Re:Next up (1)

HiMorons (1951132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463646)

Good thing then most of Slashdot wants the US Government to take control of the Internet via the FCC. The FCC that censors the things it controls. Nothing could go wrong there! Just give me my diplomatic gossip and unrestricted torrents; I deserve them! /s

If the Government could censor it they would because it's their responsibility to safeguard information like that. So, you all go ahead and give them that power. See how it works out..

Re:Next up (1)

Covalent (1001277) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463688)

We used to want more freedom...but then we declared the 'war on freedom'. It's been a great success!

Re:Next up (1)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 3 years ago | (#34464036)

I am disappointed. I RTFA and saw no mention how I was supposed to be able to copy and pirate drugs over the internet. I had utorrent all fired up and waiting for the torrent to download some good codeine and cocaine.

Re:Next up (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34464074)

You know, I'm as big a fan of Orwell as the next guy... but... the sites they are targeting are making "counterfeit" items. They're actually infringing on established patents, and (in the case of pirates) stealing. If you don't like those things, then get involved in the making of laws by badgering your representatives. Otherwise, calm down. Enforcing the law is not the same as abandoning all law, tearing up the Constitution, and locking everyone away who looks at you crosswise.

Incidentally, the right to free speech is something that we have encoded in law. Isn't what you're really saying: "Hey, why are you enforcing the laws I hate?" Trying to fix that seems a far more slippery slope to me...

Re:Next up (4, Insightful)

ubermiester (883599) | more than 3 years ago | (#34464110)

How long before they start to censor sites with political views not approved by the government, or blocking sites deemed 'risks to national security'

That's the kind of thinking that leads to statements like "If we let gay people get married, what's next - marrying your dog?" Please stop the Bush/Obama=Hilter madness. If you're going to make the case for hypothetical future govt abuses, at least come up with something remotely based on reality.

Similarly, selling bootleg DVDs on the street is illegal and those who do so are shut down and arrested/fined. This has not in any way led to the shutdown of legit video stores that sell "objectionable" content. To make that link is to create a classic straw-man.

tired of my country trying to police and control everything

By any measurable standard, the average American citizen has more freedom of movement and behavior than anyone in human history. And the trend continues. Gay/inter-racial marriage, hardcore porn, sodomy, public nudity, medical marijuana, etc, etc, etc. There has been an explosion of new rights and freedoms in the 20th century. What freedoms do you feel you have lost?

If you're concerned about your right to steal music/movies/books/etc by getting them from torrent sites, then you are claiming that your "right" to steal trumps the creator's (intellectual) property rights. Not exactly what you had in mind I don't think, but that's what you're complaining about in the current context.

Drugs! (0)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463102)

Drugs drugs everywhere a drug
mucking up the profits breaking my business plan
Do this, don't do that, can't you control the drugs?

Nice... (4, Insightful)

TrisexualPuppy (976893) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463108)

So I won't be able to order Pfizer terramycin from Greece anymore and will be required to spend 10x the amount and purchase it locally?

Re:Nice... (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463196)

Pretty much.
At least you'll know it's real ;)

Of Course, Copyright Does NOT Apply (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34463226)

Wikileaks [wikileaks.ch] !

Yours In Zurich,
Kilgore Trout

Re:Nice... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34463228)

So when you get a faked batch of drugs that do more harm than anything else you're going to run to the government and demand tighter controls?

Re:Nice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34463566)

So when you get a faked batch of drugs that do more harm than anything else you're going to run to the government and demand tighter controls?

You're a pawn.
 
Captcha: centrist

Re:Nice... (2)

Spoonofdarkness (1954022) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463366)

Even worse, I fear that they might shut down my Viagra torrent site!

Re:Nice... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34463692)

Do you know why it costs more locally? Just like chip makers have runs of "the good stuff" and the items that won't work at the original intended speed that they then mark as a lower speed and sell for less, drug makes have batches that meet local regulations and ones that don't. If a batch doesn't meet US federal regulations it is sent to some country where it DOES meet the regulations. This may be fine for you if, for example, your needs only require your pill be within 30% tolerance of the labeled amount. But if you required 95% tolerance - you would have to pay more for it. Some countries have higher purity / tolerance standards than the US. Buy brand name drugs from there: you'll find they are more expensive than in the US. It is all about how much it costs to make and which batches meet the requirements of which place.

Cognitive Dissonance (3, Interesting)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463192)

I'm struck with CD... As an artist, a musician, I don't want my work to be copied and people to 'take advantage' of me. But on the other hand, I feel like copyright is an artificial device that only hurts the economy and, on a higher level, human progress as a whole. We can't have 'copied' drugs for much cheaper, thus some people who might have been able to afford said drugs are no longer able to... just to secure the profits of some corporation? I must be missing something here. Someone cure my CD?

Re:Cognitive Dissonance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34463400)

It's called patent law. Drugs are patented. Generally drugs are discovered or invented in non-pharmaceutical research centers, like universities. Then pharma buys the patent of the drug from the university for some quick cash, pays for trials, and then has a 20+year monopoly...

Most pharmaceutical do not spend much on actual research of *new* drugs. Their R&D is spent on trials and that is a fraction they spend pushing the drugs to the public. Of course, it is all covered by the price.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance (2)

JTsyo (1338447) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463410)

Who's going to research new drugs if the work will be stolen and sold for just the cost of production? The companies that need to do the research and then go through years of trials for approval needs the charge higher to make back the money they invest and to have funds for future research. Now asking what's the right amount to charge that gets tricky. there won't be any market forces since they'll be the only ones producing it.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance (1)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463582)

and since they will lose their competition, prices will sky rocket. They can charge what they want as long as people keep buying them, which they will. Some people need to take this stuff to not die, so the big corporations will just get retarded about prices.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance (2)

JTsyo (1338447) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463850)

If they didn't bother to make the drug in the first place, the patient would be in the same situation. Though I do agree that the cooperations markup price more than needed. Should the government be running drug research labs and then making the result available for others to produce?

Re:Cognitive Dissonance (1)

Compholio (770966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463636)

Who's going to research new drugs if the work will be stolen and sold for just the cost of production? The companies that need to do the research and then go through years of trials for approval needs the charge higher to make back the money they invest and to have funds for future research. ...

The vast majority of this research is funded or subsidized by your tax dollars already. So, why exactly should these companies be making huge profits off of marginal investments in government work?

Re:Cognitive Dissonance (1)

HotBits (1390689) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463816)

Universities maybe? To get a cut of government grants (that big-pharma already gets) and public recognition?

Re:Cognitive Dissonance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34464038)

Q: Who's going to reasearch new drugs (hardware/software/wetware/etc)?
A: The same _people_ that are researching them now, except that they would probably be working for universities instead of some corporation. After that the generic companies would still make the drugs.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance (0, Troll)

nstlgc (945418) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463430)

I don't think you should call yourself an artist if your first goal isn't to get your music to as many people as possible. A musician, maybe, but an artist? Not in my book, sorry...

Re:Cognitive Dissonance (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463578)

Your book is very thin and disjoint. Nobody would steal it.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34463760)

His goal is to get his music to as many people as possible. There won't be any music to get to people if he doesn't have enough time to make it. For example, if he can't make any money selling copies of it and instead has to hold down a 40-hr a week job.

Making money off the work of making art is what makes it possible for him to get his art to many people.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463482)

"copied drugs" may not necessarily contain what they are advertised to. They may pose a health risk, or may not have as much active ingredient as they claim to.

Plus I don't think most of the people getting them have had the legitimate alternatives prescribed to them by a doctor.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance (1)

noobermin (1950642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463530)

Unless you are Justin Blieber, no one is going know about your music unless you publicize it some way. Oddly, in contrast, what indie people lose in piracy is less overcome for them as opposed to what popular artists lose. Be assured, the government isn't doing it for you, it's doing it for them.

Also, it works both ways, artists like Causa Sui or Farflung or Ufomammut (although they're more popular than the other two) wouldn't even be known to me unless someone put their music, ie, somewhat pirating their music for me on the internet, and what do you know? I've bought an album and am looking to buy more because of what I heard because I want to support them. (I might have to pirate Causa Sui, I don't want those pathetic 192 kbps mp3s from itunes and the real albums are sold out!)

As an indie artist, I can't see how putting your stuff out there for free doesn't at least help somewhat with getting your name out there.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34463830)

Further, I've heard stories of other benefits to *performing* musicians who give their stuff away for free. One example is a friend of mine who was in a band which was basically on the break-even path with their album sales. Nothing astounding. They were all finishing up school and thinking about families and stuff, so they decided to just release their stuff for free, and do a final tour. What they found was, because their stuff was on-line, they could pack clubs all over Europe, and looking out into the audience, they could see people singing along with their lyrics. My buddy, who was the drummer, talked to a few people at one of their shows in Germany, and they indicated that they'd never heard of the band, but saw the poster for the show, downloaded the music and listened to it, and decided it'd be a fun show.

Even bigger bands who have a revenue stream other than direct music sales can benefit. I remember when Spinal Tap released their movie on DVD, they also put up a site called "Tapster" to freely distribute all their songs, as a promotional tool for DVD sales...

Re:Cognitive Dissonance (1)

luther349 (645380) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463558)

don't even get me started on fucking oboma and his health hell. helthcare reforms need people to copy and sell drugs cheaper. thats why are system is so dammed broken and expensive. its called the free market but nope not allowed anymore. if are government would stop going in the corp interest and start letting privet company's sell health care and make drugs. health care would naturally become cheaper being they would be forced to compete. its so dammed easy its sad but they rather pass stupid laws and fine people who make less then 60 grand a year to be able to afford these insane health rates. thank gods states and even repluctions are looking to cripple or veto obomas health crap.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463916)

I see that you're not especially literate. I really don't think you figured that all out for yourself, did you? You took it almost verbatim from Faux News. Except for the grammar and the spelling. Dude - THERE IS NO FREE MARKET IN HEALTH CARE!!! Wake the hell up. There are myriad regulations in place, seemingly to protect the people - but if you really dig into them, they only protect the investments of big business. Free market? Really? Not since - ohhhhh - about the early 1950's.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance (1)

iceaxe (18903) | more than 3 years ago | (#34464050)

I think there may be some gaps in your cause-effect chain. Perhaps some chalkboard circles would clear things up, yes?

Re:Cognitive Dissonance (3, Funny)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463574)

So, lemme get this straight. You're against copying music, because you create music. But you're for copying drugs, because you use drugs?

Just think of it this way. If more people do drugs, then there would be more people creating music. More competition means fewer people buying your music. And that means you would have less money for lava lamps.

So, as you can see, it's clearly in your interest to be against free drugs.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance (4, Insightful)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463584)

What you call 'taking advantage of you' could also be called 'free advertising'. A copy of a work (song, painting), have previously been treated as a 'product' in and of themselves. That will change to being a 'physical copy'. A digital copy of a work can be reproduced perfectly and in an infinite supply.

So that now the 'value' of a copy is going to be for practical purposes, zero.

The music industry is fighting this, but simply can't win that war. Eventually new artists will skip the established labels and go straight online and the labels and 'old' companies will wither.

As an artist, use the power of the internet to drive sales of the intangible things you create. Like playing a live concert, or an actual painting. That is the way of the future.

And to be sure there will be some 'need' for a good marketing company to promote bands, but it will be less of the master/slave relationship that the labels currently have and more of the customer/client relationship that exists in normal non-monopoly situations.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34463588)

Obama has introduced a war on Rx drugs, as if we needed another crusade of falsities. This one can't even go under the disguise that the drugs are dangerous, because well, millions of people need Rx drugs just to stay alive. Obama is also actively censoring the web. It's almost as if he wants our government stretched as thin as possible so we become as weak as possible, not to mention pissing off as many Americans as possible. All this shit makes me sick.
 
PS Lets not forget you get searched more rigorously going through airport security than you do visiting (or even being admitted to) a prison. Think we could spend a couple trillion more in the next two years so we have absolutely NO WAY to pay back our debt? K THX BAI!

Re:Cognitive Dissonance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34463684)

run a PWD

Re:Cognitive Dissonance (2)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463840)

Copyright in some form is good. Copyright in its current form is bad. You should be able to retain control over your own work, and you should be able to make a living off of it. However, since the laws of the land are for sale to the highest bidder, Copyright has been subverted by corporations who want to be able to ride that money train until the end of time.

To some extent sharing is also good, it helps get word of your art around. However you would hope that once someone has heard a song or two from you, that they would come buy your albums. Far too often that doesn't happen. If the artist is making his work available, I have no sympathy for the leeches. They should either stick with works in the public domain or pony up whatever the copyright holders are asking. Anything else is hypocrisy attempting to justify criminal behavior. If you don't like how the system works, start a movement to change the laws or do not partake of the system. Do not delude yourself into thinking that stealing from the system will change anything or prove anything to anyone. It will only eventually get you sued into bankruptcy.

Personally I prefer music that's actually human to the pre-packaged crap that is pop music today. I would much prefer to be able to give a garage band in Kenya or Japan $10 for an album than go through the standard commercial channels. The Internet has the ability to make anyone a publisher, but very few artists seem to be taking advantage of that fact. And at least some of the ones that do still get taken down by bad-faith DMCA notices because the web sites are "hosting MP3s". I'm sure that if a lot of artists started doing this, the RIAA would successfully lobby Congress to make it illegal, too, because they give Congress a Fuck-Ton of money. Perhaps the fact that our laws are for sale in such a fashion should be the first issue to be addressed in this little problem.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463844)

Could your indecision stems from wanting at least a little control of your work for at least a little while? Not absolute control for eternity?

Well, that was what copyright was supposed to be: control for a limited time. Your gut instinct jives with what it was supposed to be. You get first crack at trying to commercialize your effort (or give it away), then after a few years anyone who could figure out how to use it was free to make a go of it.

Same for someone who dumps money into writing a book, coming up with a drug, and so on. Even if it's a company, it seems fair they should get a chance to profit from their effort or buying your rights to your works.

But for a limited time! That's probably what bothers the heck out of you.

At least patents for drugs are less than a generation. And if it weren't for the huge profits to be made from the drugs, nobody would be able to buy most new drugs at any price ever, much less be able to buy them cheap several years later. Patents are a Faustian deal, but most people don't realize it's patent holders that are Faust. Time moves on and we get the soul.

Ah, I see it is 3PM. Thus my ramble ends abruptly and I'm going home.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance (1)

dwandy (907337) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463884)

I don't want my work to be copied and people to 'take advantage' of me....Someone cure my CD?

Well, ultimately only you can cure you, but I'll suggest some points to ponder.
This idea that people copying your work somehow takes advantage of you is a concept sold to us by middle-men without talents of their own. They successfully marketed the idea that people owed you compensation if they had thoughts inspired by your thoughts. They successfully created a sense of entitlement in the common person; a sense that if someone is able to make use of one of your ideas that they owed you compensation.
. But this isn't true, and isn't possible in practice. Generically, all human knowledge is built on that which came before and it is the ability to build on other works or combine works in new ways that allows for progress. All people share ideas daily with others, and do so without compensation. And this is natural, and how we have evolved for thousands of years. Taken to it's logical conclusion, telling someone to go to the movies is "your idea" and if they make use of it, they owe you compensation. That is absurd, and hence ultimately unworkable. So we try and make artificial boundaries; laws where some actions/ideas are "protected" and other are not. And these laws are then arbitrarily applied to different scenarios by judges. The resulting mess is what we call IP today. And it's not going to get better until it is abandoned.
Ultimately this is a business model question: is monopoly protection the best way to generate ideas? In economics, a monopoly is (universally?) a bad idea. Monopoly leads to monopoly rents, with less incentive to innovate. What monopoly rents are good for is the profits of those that hold the monopoly rights.

So, in answer to your question I would suggest that you worry less about people copying your work, and concentrate on how you can take advantage of the free copying to make you money. In no version of the foreseeable future will it get harder to copy digital or digitizable works - (in fact with 3d printers coming, this will extend to physical goods...) -- so any attempt to make money by restricting copying is a losing battle.

One of the best blogs on this topic [techdirt.com] . It is a must-read for anyone interested in making money via abundance instead of artificial scarcity.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance (1)

EvilBudMan (588716) | more than 3 years ago | (#34464026)

I think it has more to do with people getting scheduled drugs, that they shouldn't more than it has to do with CD copying. Just a guess.

Thank god (1)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463206)

...especially the illegal copying and sale of pharmaceutical drugs.

'Bout time.

The new face of the US Government (3, Interesting)

noobermin (1950642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463332)

"DoJ's announcement immediately won the praise of the entertainment industry and renewed interest on Capitol Hill for legislation that would grant the administration additional power to shutter malicious and rogue websites."

The entertainment industry. Yup, of the people, by the people, and for the people. More like the oligarchy.

Re:The new face of the US Government (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463510)

The entertainment industry. Yup, of the people, by the people, and for the people. More like the oligarchy.

And what really chaffs most about this is they pressured the US government to pressure other countries to adopt copyright legislation treaties more stringent than what the DMCA was, and then use that to basically cause the US to now have to adopt those as well.

It's like they managed to negotiate on behalf of the oligopolies and then make everyone beholden to them. I've said before, the "entertainment/copyright" industry now has almost direct control over the internet.

Re:The new face of the US Government (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463596)

Of the people, by the people and for the people (who own majority share in the worlds largest and wealthiest corporations).

Re:The new face of the US Government (1)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463620)

That is why I now refer to the USA as the CSA (I just started calling it that in my last post, but it is a good term. Welcome to the Corporate States of America. For the corporations, but the corporations. Please enjoy your stay

Re:The new face of the US Government (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463632)

Sing us a song. If it's any good, the entertainment industry will include you.

Thank God (2)

enormouspenis (741718) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463340)

he's addressing this huge security problem. Maybe he can require everyone who is a non-union member to have a license to surf the internet or undergo a body scans and forensic HD searches daily. I imagine he will have terrorists tried in criminal court in NY and copyright violators tried by a military tribunal in Gitmo. There'll be another 250 Million in the re-election fund for our president from Hollywood though. Once the FCC finishes asserting complete control over the intertubes the Pirate Bay will be a moot point anyway. Bitter? Angry? Disgusted? Not me.....

You want to control drugs? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34463404)

Start with Blizzard and their godamn addictive games.

Did they shut down? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34463428)

Did they shut down any sites? As far as I was aware, they just had their domain names revoked and that's all...

woooo hoooo , like it's going to change anything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34463432)

federally enforced outsourcing .......
like they are going to stop anything , it's been what 30 years since reagan war on drugs ? still easier to get some dope then beer after hours in NYC and i suspect all us cities

Sure, shut down illegal websites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34463522)

I don't mind if the government shuts down US websites that are violating US law, as long as they give the site owners fair trials. Going after the whole world and not proving violation of law on the other hand...

Meet ... (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463544)

New Boss = Old Boss

you Fail LIt (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34463608)

you to join the who ar3 intersted The wind appeared percent 1of the *BSD to fight what has Overly morbid and Reasons why anyone

If they keep this up.. (3, Interesting)

Mysteray (713473) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463634)

So if they keep this up, jacking with .com, .org, .net, etc. the only thing that's going to happen is that those top-level names will fall into disuse. Even if you could make .com have all the safety and law-abiding-ness of .museum, do you really want to?

This is the first crack in the US's losing control of the internet. Not that the US or any one entity "controls" it per se, but we did have a big influence in the technical direction of it.

Re:If they keep this up.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34463828)

It scares me that Obama has no advisors to warm him against obvious shit like this.

Re:If they keep this up.. (2)

Mysteray (713473) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463892)

He's a lawyer.

the spread of information (1)

Nite_Hawk (1304) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463652)

I wonder if this has anything to do with a certain poison-pill that has been circulating on the torrent sites.

Under what authority... (1)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463750)

Under what authority can the federal government do this without a warrant? The commerce clause? What about the fact that torrent sites and files don't actually host the infringing content. Is that not protected via caselaw somewhere?

What does this accomplish? (1)

i.am.delf (1665555) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463770)

This sort of campaign accomplishes about zero in the real scheme of things. All they are doing is removing the public face of piracy while the sources and distribution networks still exist. It will just push piracy off of Google and back to the dark reaches of the internet where it has always existed. In fact, why even bother with the internet when there are plenty of DVD fabs in Southeast Asia cranking out true physical copies. Those have real economic harm to the entertainment industry as they redirect actual sales vs phantom sales lost to piracy over the internet.

Re:What does this accomplish? (1)

RingDev (879105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463866)

Well, if the Diplomats that wrote the cables that Wikileaks published claim copy rights over them, then the DoJ could shut down Wikileaks, and any other whistle blower site, based on copy right violations.

The pharma and entertainment industries get a boon, and send more cash in to campaign funds, which is critical to our elected multi-millionaire representatives who are going to easily crack $10 billion in spending for the 2012 election. And the feds give themselves more power. The only people who lose out are the citizens.

-Rick

How long before the US becomes world enemy #1? (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463874)

Wikileaks have shown in very clear detail how the U.S., often at the request of U.S. business (and isn't this exactly how imperialism works?), meddles in the affairs of other nations... sometimes with guns and explosives. The U.S. seems to be expanding or otherwise pushing its weight around a lot lately where pushing its agenda around. Now it is using its ICANN control to mess with DNS and it won't be long before IP routing is also a tool in its belt as well.

All of this is going to (and already is) make people very angry with the U.S. and eventually stop doing business with U.S. companies out of principle. That will pretty much spell the end of the U.S. as we know it.

The U.S. exists in a world among MANY nations. Once we turn the majority of them against us, we're in trouble... I think we already are.

It's time for the U.S. to behave. The next round of Wikileaks will turn up the truth further by exposing the REAL causes of the problems -- world banks.

CN copyright handling methodology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34463902)

Aaa, why doesn't she call the Chinese to help her? They're excellent at handling copyright. They have this(they may even hold a patent and copyrigth on it) methodology: they take the copyright, polish it and stick it the only place in the world that will have a perfect fit - the holder's arse. I think that when you implement it you'll really increase innovation and reduce costs. It's those same copyrights and patents that owe me thousands of dollars from inflated(actually not updated, but stayin the same for nearly 15yrs) prices of blood glucose testing strips.

I hate to sound like Sarah Palin (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34463908)

But that "Hope/Change thing is not working out".

Isn't it ironic that for all of the screaming about Republicans ignoring rules and laws and that its the Democrats that are the worst offenders? I'm not singling out any one party, just that when it comes to stuff like this, the record and movie companies have invested big in the government.

Also, this lays to rest the myth that Republicans are bought and sold by big business. They may well be, but its now clear Democrats have been bought and sold by the same people.

Big Media ... now Big Pharma (1)

Mansing (42708) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463960)

Which "high campaign donation" industry will the US gubmint protect next?

Abuse of the law (1)

jonfr (888673) | more than 3 years ago | (#34463962)

Far as I am concerned the U.S is abusing it's own law for the gain of the rich distribution companies. As this is not about the copyright infringement as they so often claim.

The life time of a tv shows is short, less then five years for the poorer ones and up to few decades of years for the better ones. If you want to see what I mean, just check the re-runs at your tv station.

Life time of movie is sometimes even shorter then of a tv show.

In both cases there is also the rule that good stuff is going to going to return a profit while the lesser stuff isn't going to do so. Over the last few years the companies have been blaming P2P downloads for the losses of the trash tv shows and movies. When it is in fact them self are only to blame for spending money on making junk movies and tv shows. I don't even feel sorry for companies how make crap and expect it to make a profit.

The torrent and as other P2P network threatens the distribution networks of the old media companies. Truth of the matter however is that DVD is not going any time soon. But Blue-ray might however (a writing for a different time). But it is also important to notice that the media companies have become greedy and want more profits then last year, even statically speaking that might even be impossible due to market facts and figures.

So the media companies do what companies do today. They abuse the law or more exactly. They get the politicians around the world to abuse and write the law for them (this issue is not bound to the U.S) and make sure that the law that are passed are always in there favor and not the public. This has been the trend for over 40 years now (before I was born) and it is getting worse every year. As the companies grow ever so bigger and have ever so more money to spend on this issue with lobbing politicians directly.

This leads to abuse of the law, as we are now seeing all around the western world and everywhere else for that matter. As companies gain ever more control over the political system and the law making process. This is unethical relationship of the companies with the political system that should not be allowed anywhere in the world. Worst examples of this abuse are in China and other countries where dictatorship prevails. In other countries they use different ways to get there way and to circumvent the corruption laws that are in place in western countries.

This leads me to the main topic here. The words of the Victoria A. Espinel where she confesses without releasing that she is going to abuse the law in favor or corporatism to crush the copyright infringements that do not hurt them in any way at all. Abuse of ICANN is just one of those steps that they have been using. But ICANN is a international body (or it should be) and therefor cannot uphold only U.S laws when it convince them to do so. I make no mistake when I claim that Victoria A. Espinel is in bed with RIAA and MPAA on this crusade against harmless copying of digital data. As facts is going to tell, the MPAA and RIAA have failed to show that copying of digital data harms them in any way.

I do not care about fake drugs, as that stuff can be harmful to people. There are good reasons to stop that. As fake drugs can and do kill people. However that is no excuse for abusing the law like before.

My message to politicians is quite simple. Follow due process of the law as it is set by the constitution (in your country). If you cannot do that the public has every right your fire your sorry ass forever in the next elections or before that.

It is also clear that favoritism of politicians to big corporations needs to be banned by public demand.

In regards to computer games (PC) it can be argued that cracked computer games can short the profits of the companies that make the games. It is however clear that in many cases that the price tag on one computer game is getting too high, as the game companies are demanding too high of a profit margin from a single title. The lesson here is quite clear. Lower your profit margins of the game and lower the price and your game should be a success. You know, unless it is pile of dirt and crap combined.

-- I am a artist how cares about my creations and the living that I hope to make from it in the future. As I can't say that I have made a lot of stuff so far. But I am not going to have the greedy companies and the abuse law makers ruin my market chances because they where greedy and did feel the need to be the big companies bitches. I am not going to have that ever. I am drawing a line here and this line is permanent and non-negotiable for me.

Thanks for reading.

If you're not a czar, you're nobody. (1)

broknstrngz (1616893) | more than 3 years ago | (#34464068)

All in $subj.

What does "shut down" mean here? (1)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34464092)

Out of curiosity, what do they mean by "shutting down" websites? Remove domain names from DNS servers or really shutting down the physical servers? As far as I can see so far they have primarily fooled around with the international DNS system. If it's just that, who cares.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...