Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Crookes, RIAA, MPAA, ICE — 'Linking Is Publishing'

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the in-the-case-of-face-v.-palm dept.

Canada 369

newtley writes "What do Canada's Wayne Crookes, the Big 4's RIAA, Hollywood's MPAA and brand new ICE agent Andrew Reynolds have in common? They all claim linking is the same as publishing. Crookes is using it to demand Canada's Supreme Court effectively shut down the net in Canada. With the RIAA and MPAA providing the 'initiative,' the Obama government is using Andrews [read ICE — US Immigration and Customs Enforcement] to try to shut down innocent sites for, and on behalf of, Hollywood and Big Music. The sites are 'accused of contributing to online piracy, and it was essential for the domain names to be seized without a trial and without giving the sites a chance to respond. Why? Such sites are 'destroying the US economy.' Forget about legally appointed courts, proof or due process. Hollywood and Big Music rule."

cancel ×

369 comments

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

Hey stop that! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34661558)

I invented that string of 1's and 0's years ago! It's prior art.

This isn't helping. (5, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661564)

Every time measures to stop piracy are stepped up to an even more draconian extent, the pirates feel a little bit less guilty.

I know a lot of pirates. Some of them have now moved on from "I want free stuff" to "I want to collapse the media empire before it enslaves mankind."

Also, First!

Re:This isn't helping. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34661646)

Also, First!

No, you weren't. Unless of course you demand a recount and get the first post discarded!

Re:This isn't helping. (-1, Offtopic)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661910)

It was first when I started typing.

Re:This isn't helping. (5, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661650)

This. I don't begrudge anyone pirating anymore.

The only real argument I have left with piracy is that it distorts the market. This is especially seen in the software market - where the incumbent publishers get undeserved market share through piracy - locking out alternatives. Repeat offenders giving piracy the wink-wink-nudg-nudge would be Microsoft, Adobe, and Autodesk. How else would they build their userbase if they made it impossible for HS and college students to pirate full editions?

I know a lot of pirates too. It's laughable how the studios and publishers come up with the "lost profits" that are pulled out of thin air because they assume that every pirated copy would be a bought copy.

My sympathy is gone.

--
BMO

Re:This isn't helping. (5, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661714)

Adobe and Autodesk certainly. No student could afford the price of their design products, and they know it. I imagine they tolerate student piracy so that those students will go on to become professional users and pay for a licence, rather than turn to free software or lower-cost competitors.

Microsoft is something of an odd case. Their situation is complicated by the extent to which their licences are via OEM. No student need ever pirate windows, for every computer comes with it - so unless they are on a development course, that only leaves office, which does have a low-cost student edition. Which is still expensive for a student, but not ridiculously so.

Re:This isn't helping. (1)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661788)

I imagine they tolerate student piracy so that those students will go on to become professional users and pay for a licence

Adobe offers a student license for a very affordable price. Last I looked it was $300 for a specialized suite of CS5 programs. That is more than fair if you ask me and ends up costing around the same as a couple of textbooks. You can also it for commercial projects with the only restriction being it must be installed on your personal computer (not at work or school).

Re:This isn't helping. (3, Informative)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661860)

When I was a poor teen, we didn't have money for software. Most stuff was acquired through erm.. clubs, and copied from school or work.

And $300 is still a chunk of change if you're a college student trying to meet rent on a part time job. It may be more than fair, but still, you don't see Adobe making it impossible to pirate their stuff, which they are more than capable of doing.

Because every poor teenager/student they deny copyright infringement to is a lost customer after college graduation.

--
BMO

Re:This isn't helping. (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661936)

Ah... cheaper than I remember finding it for when I looked. Maybe that deal wasn't available back then. It's £200 for the UK equivilent - more than $300, but not hugely more.

Re:This isn't helping. (5, Informative)

dnaumov (453672) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661942)

I imagine they tolerate student piracy so that those students will go on to become professional users and pay for a licence

Adobe offers a student license for a very affordable price. Last I looked it was $300 for a specialized suite of CS5 programs.

WTF, are you insane? My girlfriend (who is a student) will eat for 1 1/2 months on that 300$. Affordable my ass.

Re:This isn't helping. (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661812)

" that only leaves office, which does have a low-cost student edition. Which is still expensive for a student, but not ridiculously so."

Microsoft just recently dumped OGA. Guess why.

--
BMO

Re:This isn't helping. (0)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661940)

Whenever you think about student pricing, remember this: If a student wishes to buy legal software, they more forgo the consumption of an equivilent value of alcohol.

Re:This isn't helping. (1)

whitehaint (1883260) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661922)

Autodesk is quite helpful and has a student version. As well, Autodesk is quite nice to pirates, buy it or your up a creek.

Re:This isn't helping. (3, Insightful)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661970)

those students will go on to become professional users and pay for a licence

Nail, meet head (wait...that sounded kinda dirty). I was certainly guilty of pirating Adobe and Autodesk software in grad school. Living on $900 per month was difficult and some of us simply didn't have the grant money and/or disposable income to purchase legit software. Fast forward to today and I have a full paid for version of Adobe Master Suite CS5 and Autodesk Maya 2010 at my workstation at work. They essentially looked the other way when I, and others stole our first hit of sweet sweet software and now that we're hooked they have a guaranteed user base.

Re:This isn't helping. (1)

jerep (794296) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661796)

Actually I believe this is helping, we're one step closer towards the masses realizing they are living in a giant corporate turd.

Re:This isn't helping. (1)

ThePromenader (878501) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661858)

Egads! It's worse than I thought - until now I thought we were only living ~on~ a giant corporate turd!

Re:This isn't helping. (1)

budgenator (254554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661988)

When they start realizing the the Republican Industrial-Military Complex is quite lame compared to the Democrat's Entertainment-Government Complex maybe somebody will castrate that giant corporate turd.

Re:This isn't helping. (5, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661824)

I'm an older guy who can afford to buy cd's and stuff.

I choose not to, though. I'm one of those who has had enough bullshit from big media and now ACTIVELY WANTS TO SEE THEM GO BANKRUPT.

I no longer view pirates as kids with no money; I view them as equalizers in the new david and goliath struggle.

I also buy used cd's so that no money goes back to the media companies. the last new cd I bought was probably over 10 years ago.

"meet the new customer; NOT the same as the old customer!" /apologies to The Who

Re:This isn't helping. (1)

bunhed (208100) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661934)

Straight up. No matter what happens musicians will still make music and find ways to get it into people ears. And besides, If the music industry did collapse at least society would no longer have to contend with the corporate creations the likes of Bieber et. al., slowly and steadily making everyone beat-numb and grinding them into musical illiteracy. Most of the crap they are crying about a human with ears left wouldn't even pirate in the first place, let alone buy.

Re:This isn't helping. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34661902)

This. I just purchased Mass Effect 1 and 2, and all the ME2 DLC. Why? Because I felt really bad about pirating the games because I loved them. I'd never dream of pirating a Valve game - why? I feel I am getting good value for money. When these megacorps overcharge, monopolise and generally fuck me over, what is going to stop me pirating? DRM sure as hell isn't.
You know what is? Good games, where I feel the developer is treating me fairly.
For the record, I pirated ME1 because I bought it on 360 originally, but wanted it on PC, then pirated ME2 because it was released as a torrent before the release date, and I was impatient.

Destroying the US economy? (4, Interesting)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661576)

Companies which at least attempt to adapt to the changing market seem to be doing ok... [google.com]

Re:Destroying the US economy? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34661798)

"Destroying the US economy?"
The US economy gets a lot of funds when selling weapons, therefore stopping wars is destroying the US economy!! Oh, wait, looking at the wars waged in the past 60 years, I can't help but get this sinister feeling...

boycott all large labels? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34661578)

If nobody buys the crap, they can't fund their campaign.

Re:boycott all large labels? (2)

click2005 (921437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661698)

Canadians pay a levy on blank media so the labels would still get enough money to buy more laws.

Re:boycott all large labels? (1)

ThePromenader (878501) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661896)

Same here in France (and I'm Canadian, so I get it from both ends). If there ever was a law unjustly (and blindly) punishing the innocent, it's that one - I don't like the idea of my giving money to record companies whose crappy artists I don't even listen to every time I burn a DVD of photos for each publication I make. These RIAA guys are just assh*les, but they continue their antics only because we are allowing them to - in part, by buying music! And blank CD's/DVD's... ouch.

Linking != publishing (5, Insightful)

kimvette (919543) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661582)

Sorry, but linking is not the same is publishing.

Linking is the equivalent to pointing and shouting "Oh look, a deer!" in the real world.

Now, if I were to do that, I am not putting the deer there. I am simply mentioning that I see one and pointing it out to people. Now, if you mis-use the information if you happen to be within earshot and hear me and you poach that deer, it's not my fault nor my responsibility you did so - even if you are holding a shotgun when I point it out.

Re:Linking != publishing (-1, Flamebait)

Kaz Kylheku (1484) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661708)

Linking is the equivalent to pointing and shouting "Oh look, a deer!" in the real world.

Go learn HTML 101. There are forms of linking which look exactly like copying.

Why don't you put some pictures on your web server?

I will put up some IMG objects on my site, and point the SRC= attribute to your server, then add text saying that these are my images.

Or how about I target an anchor, using your web page, to a frame inside my page? Look ma, no scroll bars or any kind of border or indication that this area of the screen is not my website but someone else's!

"Oh look, a moron".

Re:Linking != publishing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34661800)

It's a piece of piss to stop hot linking and iframe hosting like that.

But hey, you know HTML 101 so it's all good.

Re:Linking != publishing (3, Funny)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661962)

I had someone hotlink to an image on my server once. I was annoyed enough to throw together a little piece of perl that checked the referer header, and if it matched their site return not the image, but furry porn. They took down the hotlink.

Re:Linking != publishing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34661810)

The difference is that the "link" still works when the site linking to it is gone, durr. Try learning how HTML actually works you sanctimonious twat.

Re:Linking != publishing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34661816)

This is not the linking they are talking about. Hotlinking (poaching) images to save your own bandwidth and cost others money (while to my mind an egregious offense) is not the target of this. Frames aren't either. This Crookes guy is saying that a simple link to an article is "republishing" that article. Really, this would have to extend to Google, Bing, etc. - you do a search and you get back links. Google, Bing, etc. have now "republished" that material - even though all they did was show you a link to it. They even go so far as to say that it is republishing if you just cite the link as an example with which you disagree. Think of all the "citation needed" items that would not get those nice links if this idiot and his lawyer got their way. Fortunately, Crookes won't prevail. All of the stuff in this article is pretty old news.

Re:Linking != publishing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34661818)

I will put up some IMG objects on my site, and point the SRC= attribute to your server, then add text saying that these are my images.

Easy to block and many image hosting sites do so.

Re:Linking != publishing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34661892)

If "Referer" != { mysite, myfriend's_site, some_other_sites }
( or if referer = { enemy's site } )
and "Object requested" == { image, movie, flash file, }
return
"invalid use"

OK, link is kinda the word I want to use. I think the definition of link needs to be clarified.
We can use Link as both both using an object in a page (as in IMG, IFRAME, etc, that you point out )as well as referring to a hyperlink (table of contents/index, something that takes me to your site wholesale instead my browser grabbing an object from your site). In one case, (the hyper linking) we have something that could effect Google, Yahoo, and every other search engine out there. In the other case (img, embed, iframe, etc.) we have people using other people's bandwidth and perhaps falsely claiming what the object is.

Firefox does include the Referer header when grabbing IMG, FRAME, and IFRAME and EMBED. If you really don't want people using your stuff, just set that and go on. Of course browsers can be set to not pass the referer(or falsify it), but I think that really shows the user trying to do something (or can you do some tricks with javascript to do that?).
Or even more extreme, if people try and access anything on your site w/o the referer referring to a page already on your site, redirect them to your front page. People would hate it as any link to your site (as in an email, search engine, etc) would just end up back at your front page.

Re:Linking != publishing (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661956)

moran, ....

there is a HUGE diff between a 'download right now, almost no choice' (img tags) and an a-href tag that allows you to FOLLOW a link but never ever forced the content to be downloaded without the user wanting it to be so.

music, unless you directly link to playable files (no one does that!) is not an inline embeddable.

Re:Linking != publishing (1, Interesting)

easterberry (1826250) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661718)

Well if you run a company called "PoachAssist - The Best Spot to Find Animals you Want to Poach" then I'd say you can at least be hit for aiding and abetting

Re:Linking != publishing (2)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661728)

Of course linking is the same as publishing. Just like when a journalist reports on a crime, he is an accessory after the fact and punished accordingly. They are the same thing, aren't they?

Re:Linking != publishing (4, Insightful)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661730)

>Sorry, but linking is not the same is publishing.

The thing is, I think they (the Mafiaa for want of shorthand) know this. That's not, however, the basis for their public statements and actions, legal or otherwise - that's solely based in the 'say and do anything to maintain the self-interested business model we have because we're attached to it and haven't the fucking imagination to adapt and survive (and hopefully prosper).

I think their time is at an end. They are gatekeepers and really they need to become curators - and along with that comes a financial down-shift: a useful and possibly necessary service, that money can be accrued from, but not the all-powerful position that they once had. The smarter ones will jump ship, I think, and adopt this (or a better) strategy, but their time is at an end and the only yhting that can extend it is their wealth (that can buy disproportionate power with politicians to that which any member of a democracy should have) and their rhetoric.

We know their rhetoric is hollow. They know it too. We can only hope the judiciary are also of the same mind and not easily fooled.

Re:Linking != publishing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34661734)

> Linking is the equivalent to pointing and shouting "Oh look, a deer!" in the real world.

Huh? I don't understand what deer have to do with it.

Can you give me a car analogy?

Re:Linking != publishing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34661844)

Oh, sorry. I forgot this is /. where if something isn't a bad car analogy, something measured in units of volkswagens or libraries of congress, but I'll patronize you ;)

Linking is the equivalent of pointing and shouting "Oh look, a Lamborghini!" That you might happen to be a car thief on the lookout for a gallardo doesn't make me an accessory for merely pointing it out to anyone who cares to look at an exotic car. That you decided to be a douchebag and steal someone else's car is not my fault, responsibility or anything like that.

Re:Linking != publishing (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661762)

Did you just publish a deer?

Oh look, a million dollars!

Re:Linking != publishing (1)

icannotthinkofaname (1480543) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661880)

Linking is the equivalent to pointing and shouting "Oh look, a deer!" in the real world.

I think it's more like "Hey, I think you should read this book. It's called <title>, and you can buy it at <store>." According to the "linking == publishing" philosophy, recommending a book to someone like this means that I have stolen the author's work and called it my own.

I'm waiting with some terror for the day when using library resources and reading books in the bookstore without purchase is considered equal to copyright infringement.

Publish the internet in a single link (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34661584)

If a link is publishing, then is a link to a link publishing the link which published the original? Does any website that link to google, or to a website that links to google, in effect publish the entire internet?

Re:Publish the internet in a single link (1)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661786)

Stop! You're making my head hurt!

Re:Publish the internet in a single link (4, Funny)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661846)

If a link is publishing, then is a link to a link publishing the link which published the original? Does any website that link to google, or to a website that links to google, in effect publish the entire internet?

The answer is of course 'Kevin Bacon'

Re:Publish the internet in a single link (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34661954)

And what happens if we just copy paste URLs without putting them in tags?

Brave! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34661586)

I'm surprised slashdot is brave enough to link to the story. I'd be scared of being taken down for providing access to illicit material that may undermine the government.

Linking is Publishing? (4, Interesting)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661588)

Interesting.
I guess that means that every single time the US Government has mentioned Wikileaks at press conferences they have themselves published all the documents available at Wikileaks?

I mean - mentioning the name of a website while talking, that's pretty much the same as linking in writing.

I guess Wikileaks is off the hook for publishing the documents then ...

This is dangerous thinking. (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661604)

Linking can't be publishing. If linking is publishing, then Google, Bing, and Yahoo are breaking the law, right now. Guess we'll have to to shut them down.

Re:This is dangerous thinking. (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661618)

Damn! I think I just broke the law by mentioning Google, Bing and Yahoo!

Re:This is dangerous thinking. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34661648)

Did you miss this part in TFS - "effectively shut down the net in Canada"

For Realz, Player? (5, Insightful)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661622)

What does it take to get a government of the people, for the people, and by the people in today's world?

Re:For Realz, Player? (2)

Massacrifice (249974) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661682)

It takes big corporations spending big money to convince people they are ruling the show rather than just being cattle to aforementioned corporate overlords. Tough shit ain't it?

Else, you can take over Antarctica, break a few treaties and start your own country with sane laws but insane weather.

Re:For Realz, Player? (4, Insightful)

click2005 (921437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661704)

What does it take to get a government of the people, for the people, and by the people in today's world?

A revolution.

Re: Be ready to voice an opinion. (2, Interesting)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661752)

Very difficult my friend, for the people that are the loudest are right...kindergarten logic.

The real question is, when will be the tipping point in America? At some point there will need to be a march on Washington not for piracy, but privacy on multiple fronts. When these issues start affecting even more of the masses in a daily fashion, this may happen. Everything from airport scanners, to cell phone tracking, to packet inspection, to... I just wonder what will be the metaphorical straw to break the camel's back.

Personally, I'll gladly pay for my gas and beer costs to march on Washington, as soon as a big enough march is organized. For now our job is getting the next door neighbor concerned, bringing this to "main street". Make it applicable to them, in a subtle non-trollish manner (haha). The one thing that can save America, or any other nation who is driven by the will of it's citizens, is to educate and make the issues tangible, clear-cut.

I refuse to believe there is nothing that can be done. To have a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, well...you have to start with informing the people.

Re: Be ready to voice an opinion. (2)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661776)

I wonder if this is a traditional quorum-sensing problem?

None of us can be bothered to march on Washington to demonstrate because each of us feels only a handful of others would show up. When in fact, none of us really knows for sure how many like-minded citizens would join us.

Re: Be ready to voice an opinion. (0)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661984)

people from the two 'thinking coasts' will show up.

the flyover states continue to think that even the TSA is there to 'help them be safer'.

with idiots like that making up the US voting population, there isn't a lot of hope, really.

we are the vocal minority on slashdot. the general population is nowhere near as clued in to this stuff as we are.

Re: Be ready to voice an opinion. (1)

dch24 (904899) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661996)

Not yet.

Better quorum sensing would allow the people to get organized a little sooner -- but it would also enable the opponents to identify rapidly growing threats and proceed to divide and conquer them.
Typical grass roots movements grow exponentially so sensing the quorum is an easy problem -- once the tipping point is reached, it's obvious to everyone simultaneously. I think that's a good thing.

Re:For Realz, Player? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34661758)

Corporations are people, too. The system is working.

Re:For Realz, Player? (1)

ThePromenader (878501) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661938)

In a word: people. Not corporations.

Oh, and getting rid of that blatantly abusive 'a corporation is a person' law would help to make things ~much~ clearer-cut for us all.

Re:For Realz, Player? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661998)

Oh, and getting rid of that blatantly abusive 'a corporation is a person' law would help to make things ~much~ clearer-cut for us all.

Good luck with that one. All the "free market" people will cry foul when you take away their government-granted limited liability.

Re:For Realz, Player? (1)

suomynonAyletamitlU (1618513) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661960)

What does it take to get a government of the people, for the people, and by the people in today's world?

Same thing it took the first time--an overlord that wasn't respected, a bunch of charismatic people that wanted to change things, and an army to protect #2 from #1.

Stop buying music and movies. (1)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661624)

Stop buying everything. Don't give them a single penny. You do not need these things anyway! Then write letters to them explaining WHY you're not buying from them.

I know, I know, "it's a nice idea, but most people are sheep and will buy anyway". Sad, sad, sad. That's the only solution I can think of, until someone whose voice actually means something can speak up for common sense and start bringing this shit to a halt. Anyone? Bueller?

oh yeah (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661738)

Then write letters to them explaining WHY you're not buying from them.

they would care about that.

Re:oh yeah (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661978)

They would care about the cost of hireing people to open all those letters, skim them for anything important, and throw them in a recycling bin.

Such sites are 'destroying the US economy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34661626)

Let's discuss how media from the big four are 'destroying the US '!

Fucking scum (1)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661630)

These scumbags - the RIAA and MPAA - act outside the bounds of government to force their worldview on us. When the fuck can I act outsides the bounds of the law?

Re:Fucking scum (2)

shop S Mart (755311) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661662)

Anytime you want, just make sure you have the RIAA's and MPAA's lawyers backing you up.

I have no problem with this. (-1)

sitarlo (792966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661636)

Google (YouTube), and dozens of other major sites are in clear violation of long standing copyright law. Millions of people rely on those laws to protect their industries and livelihood. Now it's a content wild west where anything goes. When there is blatant criminal activity in progress the authorities do have the right to stop the activity before there is a trial. I like free content as much as anyone else, but not at someone else's expense. Who's more greedy? The corporations who want to make a buck on content, or the fans who want it for free? There's got to be some middle ground where everyone wins.

hahahahaa (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661732)

"corporations who want to make a buck on content" .... i almost felt sad for corporations .... fucking moron ...
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/07/13/1737224 [slashdot.org]

Re:hahahahaa (2)

sitarlo (792966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661884)

Corporations are the sum of their people. People like you and me, unless you're a trust fund kid who has no idea what it's like to work for someone else to make a living. I don't feel bad for people who abuse capitalism, but I do feel bad for people who work really hard on something only to have it stolen by people with zero ethics and an entitlement complex. I write mobile apps and for every paid download I get there are 1000 illegal downloads. I charge no more than 99c for my apps. What kind of loser does one have to be to steal a 99c item from an indie content provider??? The people sharing and downloading are just as much crooks as corp execs.

Google (1)

emijrp (1754328) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661638)

Then, is Google the most copyright infringement entity in the world?

Re:Google (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661986)

Quite possibly. I suspect that, if you count all the people who image-searched for a pic to use for clipart, they may have directly contributed to more infringing acts than even The Pirate Bay.

The name of Canada's (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661642)

seemingly most famous imaginary property troll [p2pnet.net] is ...

Wayne Crookes?

Classic.

Crooks, RIAA (1)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661644)

Isn't that a bit like saying "Fruit and apples"?

Linking can be deceptive! (3, Interesting)

Kaz Kylheku (1484) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661674)

I'm all for laws which ban deceptive linking.

There are all kinds of web sites out there whose operators scrape content, and steal bandwidth, creating the appearance that they created the content and are hosting all the images and other download materials themselves.

This is usually done to try to boost search engine rankings, to bring traffic to other content.

Such practices should be illegal.

It should only be fair use to make this kind of link:

    <a href="target site">honest text</a>

It should be obvious to the end user that this is a hyperlink, and the text should make it clear that the user is navigating to someone else's site. An optional nofollow would be allowed, but no other attributes.

Any other form of linking (such as targetting a page into a frame or iframe, or using tags sourced from another site) should require the permission of the target site in order to be legal.

The difference between linking and embedding can't be defined by the underlying technology, but by how it looks. Is there an intent to deceive? If it looks like copying is going on then it must be considered that way.

Re:Linking can be deceptive! (1)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661746)

It should only be fair use to make this kind of link:

<a href="target site">honest text</a>

Looks like this guy was rickrolled / meatspun one time too many...

Re:Linking can be deceptive! (1)

Kaz Kylheku (1484) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661840)

Rickrolling is more of a trick, where the surfer is expecting one thing but is taken somewhere else. For instance, a link to "watch a video of my puppy chasing after a ball", actually takes you to "two girls, one cup".

But I'm talking more about the kind of deception which hurts the target site by stealing content and bandwidth.

The web surfer in this situation is not surprised at all, but rather quite unaware (unless he looks closely at the URL's, and perhaps not even then).

Congrats /. (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661696)

You have published 5 articles with this one :)

Quick! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34661720)

Quick, everyone post links to "sharing" & "porn sites" in comments on RIAA/MPAA/Government sites then watch the legal system implode.

Your freedoms, at the whim of a dozen individuals (4, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661722)

dont be mistaken - these wordage only give the impression that there are a lot of people involved in these occurrences. there arent. there are a few influential shareholders among the 10-20 biggest shareholders of these companies. and they think that it should be that way. and, they put people who will do their bidding at the helm of the corporations.

and these use the vast resources of those corporations to place who support them in power, or pressurize those who are already in power.

and you end up with this situation.

had those shareholders died out, as they should have, of old age, and different people came in place of them, everything would change. at the whim of a dozen individuals. best you would expect them would be to die out fast, just like how the people in middle ages hoped for their oppressive kings or lords to die. there is nothing democratic about a corporation. its private aristocracy. aristocracy privatized. however you put it.

this is the eventual result of capitalism. the one with the gold makes the rule. you are politically free. but because exercise of any freedom is tied to money privately, those who have the money have all the freedoms, and even can restrict the freedoms of those who dont have as much money as them.

economy and politics cannot be separate from each other. never. you cant expect to make one democratic and the other undemocratic and expect it to work. one will affect the other, eventually.

there you have it. 10-20 individuals are set on limiting freedoms of people, even at the cost of hampering a MAJOR new technology that is making the civilization to have a great step forward, and there is nothing you can do about it. the appalling part is, all what is happening are acceptable and legal, in terms of capitalism and its illusion storefront of political freedom.

Re:Your freedoms, at the whim of a dozen individua (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661876)

How many companies from the NASDAQ 100 of 50 years ago still exist? Is any company as immortal as you appear to think? Sure, they're loud now, but they can and do get brought down. Really, what we need is laws and regulations that limit their ability to distort the legal system - they'll take care of limited lifetimes on their own.

The Obama Government? (1)

yotto (590067) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661744)

When did Obama take over the entire government? I thought he was having trouble reigning in the Executive branch.

Or is it "Obama" the new "Liberal Facist Marxist Commie"? Or is it how Canadians refer to the US Government?

Re:The Obama Government? (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661890)

No, he's having trouble dealing with Congress. Of course, that recent victory with the tax cuts and unemployment benefits should at least give them pause.

Should we blame Obama and Steve? (4, Insightful)

davecb (6526) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661748)

It may be the governments that Barak Obama and Steven Harper lead, but is it fair to say that the "X administration" or the "Y government" is party to this scheme?

The RIAA has been trying to change Canadian law since long before Steven Harper was even in parliament, and has worked with all the intervening governments to try to push their position.

If I were to say the "Harper administration" was part of this policy effort, it would suggest that they dreamed up the policy, and were themselves evil. That's not just an insult, it's unfair.

I'd rather insult Mr Harper fairly, by calling him "Steve" and his party the "Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance" party, or CCRAP*.

--dave
* Yes, that was the party's name at one point. They changed it.

change you can believe in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34661770)

Don't blame me, I didn't drink the obama koolaide. I voted for mitt...

Economic Darwinism (2)

JayRott (1524587) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661772)

The fact that these corporations just don't want to accept is that their business model is crumbling before their very eyes. No matter what your opinion on pirating is, it is nearly impossible to stop it. The world is changing and the big record labels and movie studios are becoming obsolete very very quickly. There is no turning back. The corporate fat cats either need to find a way to adapt to the changing environment of digital distribution (although I honestly don't have a good idea of how) or they will fall. In my opinion, the money they have been squandering on pointless lawsuits and proverbial dead horse beating would be much better spent on gathering those that a much more intelligent than they are and having them come up with a new model that might work in todays society. This is more than a few bad apples stealing, there are housewives and grandmothers hitting the pirate bay. It isn't going to change, so the industry is going to have to.

Damn You George Bush!!! (5, Funny)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661782)

I can't wait for Obama to be inaugurated!

Stop the presses! (4, Interesting)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661804)

All newspapers are guilty of robbery, murder, rape or any other of the crimes they report in their pages, at least according to this logic.

Time for the IT giants to step into the ring (5, Interesting)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661808)

According to the RIAA:

That gives us a 2008 estimate of 12 billion dollars in revenue for retail sale of music. Presumably for the RIAA, who "create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 85% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States [wikipedia.org] ". So a total of about $14.2 billion in revenue.

Now, obviously we also need to take the MPAA into consideration. Again, using 2008 numbers:
Ticket sales grossed about $10 billion. [the-numbers.com] And since quite a lot of people seem to claim (and no, I have no source handy) that home video sales is about the same as ticket sales, then we're looking at around $20 billion in 2008.

Apple's revenue for 2008 in the Americas was $14.5 billion [eweek.com] . Granted, that's a larger geographical area than RIAA's numbers, but then again Apple is a relatively small company in the IT landscape.

How about some of the bigger fish?

IBM reported revenue of $103.6 billion, and pre-tax profit of $16.7 billion [ibm.com] .

So, the movie and music industry combined gets up to around $35 billion in 2008 in the US.

IBM (world wide) - $103 billion
Apple (Americas) - $14.5 billion
Google (world wide) - $21.8 billion [google.com]
Microsoft (world wide?) - $60.4 billion [microsoft.com]
Oracle (world wide?) - 22.4 billion [oracle.com]
Dell (world wide?) - 61 billion [dell.com]

Seriously - why the fuck are the IT giants just turning their back on the complete and utter gang rape on things like the Internet, when most of their products would die off the moment it stops working the way it should.

Just buy out the fuckers, boot the executives, lawyers, assistants etc. from their penthouse offices (literally boot them out over the balcony) and just kill off these massively debilitating parasites.

Crookes is an Idiot (1)

freaq (466117) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661826)

There's no other explanation for his behaviour.
In Canada, the Supreme Court ruled last year that a newspaper reporting on slander or libel is not always necessarily guilty of libel itself, even if the defamatory statements themselves are published.
Since his case is about defamation, he's going to lose, and I expect the opinion (reserved since 7 Dec) to be a scathing chastisement indirectly aimed at his counsel.

As far as hyperlinking being publishing... what rot. No librarian would ever say the card index is the stacks, no cartographer would ever say the map is the territory.

His name is CROOKes (1, Funny)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661836)

I rest my case.

Re:His name is CROOKes (1)

U8MyData (1281010) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661908)

And... Is it just coincidence that some of the more notable names in recent happenings are the likes of Made Off (Madoff) and You can tell (Uchitel)? I wonder...

Re:His name is CROOKes (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661932)

They should give ample business to the attorneys at the reputable firm of Dewey, Cheatem and Howe.

Eating the young (1)

U8MyData (1281010) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661850)

Anymore it appears that the very people (us) that make it possible for these companies to make money, are eating their customers. Personally, I am less likely to think outside the box, start a business, or do anything that might seem risky because the price is so high anymore. I am lot less likely to advocate, trust, or patronize any company either for the same reasons; there is absolutely no benefit to me, I am mearly a means to an end, and the notion of the customer is always right doen't exist anymore. Zero tolerance and FyPm (it's an acronym; think really hard) is creating a senario for economic seizure. My 2c...

You can't use our court system with websites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34661854)

Our court system does not work with websites. It takes months for the court system to process something, and seconds to create a new website. I used to be pro pirating until media became available at a reasonable price and purchasable online. Now I don't feel so sorry for those who are sued for downloading a ton of content when they have plenty of cash. I also spent six months in Malaysia working for a computer company, and I found that they cannot make movies there because no one will buy them, they would all make copies of the film, and sell the copies without any worry, as no one will do anything about it. Imagine if marvel could not make any more movies because no one would buy them, they would just copy them. I agree with the high cost of software. I don't fell sorry for adobe when folks take free copies of their crazy expensive software. I think any software over $50 should have mutiple versions with multiple prices. If it does not make sense for a company to do this, they should expect that students and folks using the software for personal use are going to grab a free copy. It's easy to do, and they are not given an alternative. If someone is making money using the software, they should pay for a copy...

land of the free my ass (0)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661874)

The government can now take your property without proving you committed a crime. In what way does that exemplify us being "the land of the free?"

America is officially a police state. Merry Fucking Christmas.

Stop buying music and movies from those industries (1)

tshadburn (958695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661900)

Stop buying music and movies from those industries...

If you stop fuelling those companies, they'll cease to exist. Problem solved. I really do believe that industry has taken things way too far, just to cover their own inadequacies. They don't want to change and they think they can change the world. They're wrong.

People have to actually _stand up_ to defend their liberties... that's just as true in this case, as it is for everything else in life. So, just stop buying music and movies that are produced by companies involved with the MPAA/RIAA.

Re:Stop buying music and movies from those industr (1)

U8MyData (1281010) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661974)

Interesting notion. What would happen if there were a boycott/strike of any given company? For fear of reprisal, I am not picking one out, but cash flow being what it is, take just one and collectively refuse to pay our bill for a month or refuse to buy from them for a month. What would happen?

Your local library card index... (4, Insightful)

GumphMaster (772693) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661914)

Your local library card index just became a massive piracy enterprise. Best shut down libraries because they are collapsing the economy.

I've got my early retirement package! (2)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34661926)

I think I figured out how to retire early. Make video or some other form of media and copyright it. Let all kinds of people know about it. Then do a google/bing/yahoo search and if they've linked to my media, sue the pants off of them.

If the RIAA thinks that a small website linking is violating copyright, then why don't they go after the big players, too (other than they know that google and the like have the money to fight such an absurd notion).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?