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!

White House Wants New Copyright Law Crackdown

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the oh-that'll-work-out-fine dept.

The Internet 652

An anonymous reader writes "The White House is concerned that 'illegal streaming of content' may not be covered by criminal law, saying 'questions have arisen about whether streaming constitutes the distribution of copyrighted works.' To resolve that ambiguity, it wants a new law to 'clarify that infringement by streaming, or by means of other similar new technology, is a felony in appropriate circumstances'""

cancel ×

652 comments

Warez (0, Flamebait)

balls of steel (2016538) | more than 3 years ago | (#35503980)

You have to admit that copyright infringement is a major problem that needs to be handled one way or another. Especially those streaming websites and torrent sites that make money off it. People have always looked badly at selling warez. Well this is the same thing, except it's indirect revenue via ads. It is still, however, making money with warez.

Re:Warez (5, Insightful)

DanTheStone (1212500) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504076)

You have to admit that copyright infringement is a major problem that needs to be handled one way or another.

Why? If people create content regardless of copyright infringement, which is the purpose of copyright, I fail to see why it's a major problem that needs to be handled.

Re:Warez (1)

balls of steel (2016538) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504102)

They can do that already. They're free to release their content and for free if they want to. There is no need to force anyone into doing so. Content creators can already choose what they want to do.

Re:Warez (5, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504196)

They're free to release their content and for free if they want to.

His point wasn't that people can't create content freely.

His point is that the purpose of copyright is to encourage the creation of creative works. Today, with the existing system, there are PLENTY of creative works being produced. Therefore, copyright certainly does not need to be made more restrictive, and in fact the opposite may be true.

Re:Warez (1)

DanTheStone (1212500) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504246)

Thanks. I was going to reply, but yours is more concise.

Re:Warez (2, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504420)

I need more people like you. People seem to think that copyright is about "compensating" people or "being fair". The funny thing is that people who claim to be conservative and for small government often seem pro-copyright. Which is bizarre, since it is really one of the first socialist policies enacted by the young US government, along with patents, the postal service, and postal roads. I'm at a loss... :)

Re:Warez (0)

Zeek40 (1017978) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504498)

Very few people who claim to be conservative actually want small government, most of them want just regressive social policies to help maintain the status quo and lower taxes because they're the sort of people who still think that trickle down economic principles do something besides further enriching the wealthy.

Re:Warez (-1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504316)

I fail to see why it's a major problem that needs to be handled.

Because it destroys small businesses and seriously hurts medium sized business. Go look up the statistics about the economic contribution small and medium sized businesses make to the US economy. In this, it has the effect of destroying innovation.

People are constantly pissed about all the ad ware on Android. But the fact remains, piracy is so rampant, pirates have literally chased developers away from the platform and literally created the entire ad ware market on Android. If it were not for pirates, there would be little to no need for ad ware supported applications. To make matters worse, pirates are not working hard to remove ad ware from ad ware applications. Android makes for an interesting look because its ecosystem very clearly shows a financial harm to developers because of piracy and the overall effect is has on all participants. Not to mention, Android is excellent proof of why that stupid story about price being a huge factor for piracy is complete bullshit.

If you don't like ad ware, find a pirate and repeatedly kick him in the nuts until he goes unconscious. He and other like him, are literally the reason why we all suffer with ad ware on Android.

Re:Warez (1)

DanTheStone (1212500) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504526)

Because it destroys small businesses and seriously hurts medium sized business.

If a small-to-medium business's leadership has chosen an unsustainable business model that's disconnected from reality, then it's their own fault if the business goes under. There can be new businesses if a given model doesn't work out. That's how our economic system works.

Re:Warez (1, Troll)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504480)

Because it's fucking wrong. That's why. A creator has the right to, as part of the terms of selling his work, require that the receiver not make copies for anyone else. Copyright is the best way to legally enforce this (unless you want to make everyone have to sign a contract when they buy stuff), so a violation of copyright is a violation of the creator's natural rights (that is, the right to only engage in a transaction under the conditions he agrees to).

Re:Warez (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504128)

Well this is the same thing, except it's indirect revenue via ads. It is still, however, making money with warez.

Which is why the consumers love it so much. If there's really so much money to be made reselling 'warez' with ad-raised revenue, why don't the big companies do that instead?

Re:Warez (1)

InfiniteWisdom (530090) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504176)

That's a dumb argument. The people selling warez are doing so off other people's work without incurring any of the effort or cost that goes into creating the content or software. Taking the cost out of the equation obviously makes it easy for them to profit at price points that wouldn't otherwise make sense.

Re:Warez (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504452)

Taking the cost out of the equation obviously makes it easy for them to profit at price points that wouldn't allow the creators the levels of greed they desire.

FTFY

Re:Warez (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504494)

Taking the cost out of the equation obviously makes it easy for them to profit at price points that wouldn't allow the labels the levels of greed they desire.

FTFY

Fixed that fix for ya.

Paying back those Hollywood donors (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35503988)

Looks like Obama is paying another installment on the debt he owes to his Hollywood buddies [go.com] .

Between Democrats in bed with Hollywood and Republicans in bed with big business, wouldn't it be nice to have at least *one* choice in an election who doesn't support draconian DRM, Feds kicking in our doors because little Jimmy downloaded an advance screener of The Dark Knight, and ISP's tracking and archiving our every click on the internet? Would that be too goddamn much to ask?

Re:Paying back those Hollywood donors (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504008)

Stop your little shit of a kid from downloading illegal material on the internet, avoid said illegal material yourself, and you will be fine. Is that to goddamn much to ask?

Re:Paying back those Hollywood donors (2)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504188)

Except you idiots (yes, we know MPAA and RIAA post here all the time on every copyright story) want to make copyright infringement a felony.

So, if you go to some website and watch an illegal infringing ad hosted by Google, the viewer, Google, and the ad poster are now felons, subject to wiretapping!

This can get even worst as a DDoS. Face it, your lobbied and money laundered law is useless because you want to crush fair use and make everyone a felon, intentionally. There won't be anyone to buy your crap in jail if such bullshit passes into law.

Re:Paying back those Hollywood donors (5, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504244)

Is that to goddamn much to ask?

Yes. I think that having the government involved in non-commercial infringement at all is way over the line.

If Sony wants to sue my kid for copyright infringement, fine. If my kid is selling copyrighted materials and the government arrests him, fine. But having the government do Sony's contract enforcement is just plain horrid.

Re:Paying back those Hollywood donors (2)

Zeek40 (1017978) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504250)

It's funny how the people insisting on more draconian measures to protect corporate interests are the ones posting as Anonymous Cowards.

Re:Paying back those Hollywood donors (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504330)

avoid said illegal material yourself, and you will be fine

Oh, so if I'm good and law-abiding, does it mean that I don't have to put up with DRM bullshit on every piece of media I own? Is it going to exempt me from them forcing my ISP to archive all my web surfing (which the Feds can now access anytime they want, without a warrant)? Is that going to take the region coding on my blu-ray/DVD player away?

Re:Paying back those Hollywood donors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504336)

This is squeezing tighter and squeezing tighter... meanwhile the stupid-old-typewriter-era-geezers are going to die off being replaced by people who used to own Atari 800s and Commodore 64s, Atari STs and Amigas, PCs, iPods, Smartphones, and what devices will come next. There are way and way more people who will not stand for this any longer. Time is on our side. It's all a matter of time. And then it's going to blow. Berne and everything after will be out the door, and reasonable copyright terms will come in its place.

Re:Paying back those Hollywood donors (5, Interesting)

InsertWittyNameHere (1438813) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504046)

It reminds me of that anti-piracy commercial from The IT Crowd [youtube.com] .

Re:Paying back those Hollywood donors (1)

Baloo Uriza (1582831) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504058)

And people wonder why I vote Socialist. Go Bernie Sanders!

How does that Hopey-Changey horseshit taste? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504100)

That's what you idiots get for buying into the Obama facade. He's a master at telling you what you want to hear so that you'll be lulled into a contented stupor while he carries out his anti-freedom agenda. I hate MTV voters. Next time do some f-ing research, you clowns. Try voting with your mind instead of your emotions. And before some troll tries to point out that McCain wasn't much better, well, next time try supporting a third-party candidate. The only reason third-parties don't gain any traction is because of your lazy, defeatist attitude.

Re:How does that Hopey-Changey horseshit taste? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504156)

Can I point out that all the third-party candidates in 2008 were batshit fucking loco?

Re:How does that Hopey-Changey horseshit taste? (3, Insightful)

cobrausn (1915176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504284)

Write in moot then for all it matters; just stop voting Democrat / Republican until they stop being idiots or put forward a candidate with a proven track record.

Re:How does that Hopey-Changey horseshit taste? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504450)

Can I repeat myself?

"The only reason third-parties don't gain any traction is because of your lazy, defeatist attitude."

Re:How does that Hopey-Changey horseshit taste? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504218)

But it was Change I Could Believe In! Obama was going to fix everything! Slack-jawed suckers. He's never been anything but another politician.

Re:How does that Hopey-Changey horseshit taste? (1)

biek (1946790) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504234)

Try voting with your mind instead of your emotions.

Yeah, we're just not putting the right person in the White House. Keep trying!!!

Re:How does that Hopey-Changey horseshit taste? (3, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504474)

Well that is one of the advantages of the USA over others. term limits on the president.

Now we just need term limits for all elected officials and maybe we can finally start making some progress.

Re:Paying back those Hollywood donors (1)

xMrFishx (1956084) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504152)

That's the thing, this is just one more straw on the camel's back that will eventually break. At the moment I think the only near certainty is that your country will eventually go all 'Egypt' on itself. The question is when.

Re:Paying back those Hollywood donors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504232)

If you think the Dems aren't in bed with Big Business just as much or more than the Republicans, then you have been asleep for a very long time. GE? Google? Facebook? The Dems are also in bed with Big Union, Big Media, and just about every other Big Something. The Dems are absolutely enthralled by ginormous authoritarian structures. If you think ObamaCare was about getting all Americans covered by health insurance, you're only partially right. It was more about FORCING Americans to enroll in a health insurance plan.

Big Insurance: Oh noes, Big Brother! PLEASE don't force us to expand our customer base! That would be just AWFUL!!! *wink wink*

Re:Paying back those Hollywood donors (1, Informative)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504356)

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Re:Paying back those Hollywood donors (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504346)

There's a lot of choice, if I recall correctly. The only thing that is needed is for people to recognize more than two (nearly identical) parties.

Priorities, priorities.... (1)

scrout (814004) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504016)

Yeah, felony. While spending us into oblivion at a deficit of over $200 billion per month.... Nice priorities dickheads.

WTF (4, Insightful)

thomasdz (178114) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504024)

1) Someone noticed that something popular is not illegal.
2) Lobby to have it made illegal.
3) ...
4) Profit.

Re:WTF (5, Insightful)

DanTheStone (1212500) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504122)

3) is "Receive Campaign Contributions" or "Accept Lucrative Revolving-Door Job". It's actually not a mystery in this situation.

Re:WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504260)

You should use your prized 2):nd amendment to add a 5) & 6) to that list.

5) Place congresscritter against the wall.
6) Hail of bullets.

You left one out (2)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504154)

1b) Will a large company/group of companies benefit if 1 is illegal?

So, this is what America has come to? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504034)

You can no longer compete on the world stage in terms of products, don't innovate anything, and have more or less given up on educating your people.

But, the biggest priority of the White House is to ensure that streaming content is a fucking felony???

Enjoy your decline into irrelevance and the dark ages. I used to greatly admire what America stood for.

Re:So, this is what America has come to? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504090)

Enjoy your decline into irrelevance and the dark ages.

Oh, don't worry. Nobody enjoys having a great, big red, white, and blue cock shoved down their throats like the naive, short-sighted Tea Baggers. I'm sure they'll be smiling all the way down.

Re:So, this is what America has come to? (4, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504158)

Enjoy your decline into irrelevance and the dark ages. I used to greatly admire what America stood for.

Seeing how Stood is past tense, you still can admire what America "Stood" for (whatever you think that was).

However, if you think that this is the only thing the government is concerned with or doing at the moment, or that it's even the biggest priority you would be sorely mistaken. You see, I can say "I want X, Y, and Z, done, oh yea, do A also" and it wouldn't make A a priority. However, because A is something you are concerned with, you might hear about it by itself. It still doesn't make it a priority of government.

Now I understand that it might ultimately be a higher priority then what you want to happen. But that's really a indication of your priorities, not the governments.

Re:So, this is what America has come to? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504366)

"Enjoy your decline into irrelevance and the dark ages. I used to greatly admire what America stood for."

You must be a history nut to admire the first 10 years of America.

Re:So, this is what America has come to? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504500)

grow up you fucking moron. if america doesnt innovate, what copyright is being protected you fucking retard?
You pretend to give a fuck about innovation, and rewarding it, yet you hate copyright. Fucking moronic clowns like you need to fuck off to north korea and die.

Re:So, this is what America has come to? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504504)

But, the biggest priority of the White House is to ensure that streaming content is a fucking felony???

Yes, prison labor is a valuable commodity. More so as the boomers retire and nobody fills in. Forced labor will become a necessity. We must ensure that the pool is big enough. 2 million is not enough. And we can allow more criminals into the country and round them up. The more the merrier.

Incorrect use of language. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504038)

"The interests that hold the leash of american government" should be used instead of "white house" phrase. We always take it as 'implied', but the more we leave it not expressed, the more the meaning of the reality gets lost in the seeming illusion.

Re:Incorrect use of language. (0)

Tim C (15259) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504112)

That might be more accurate, but it wouldn't fit in the space for the headline...

Re:Incorrect use of language. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504166)

"The interests that hold the leash of american government" should be used instead of "white house" phrase. We always take it as 'implied', but the more we leave it not expressed, the more the meaning of the reality gets lost in the seeming illusion.

Oh sure, it's the government as a whole NOW. Back before 2008 you were all screaming bloody murder that any bad thing was laid solely at Bush's feet. Come on Dems, which is it? Oh wait, your "chosen one" is in charge so it CAN'T be his fault, can it?

other similar new technology? (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504052)

So if you come up with a way which is not similar or have a tech which isn't new, it's ok? FairyNuff.

wheres my reparations? (4, Insightful)

callmetheraven (711291) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504054)

The say slavery is over, but Obama is clearly up for sale.

Re:wheres my reparations? (1)

Tigger's Pet (130655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504298)

That's not slavery. He's merely pimping himself to the highest bidder. Sounds like good economic sense - for him at least.

Not a joking matter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504332)

"The say slavery is over, but Obama is clearly up for sale." Not cool. Not only because it is insensitive and overgeneralizing, but because it is factually inaccurate.

1) "wheres my reparations" in this context implies that as a proxy for all African Americans, O'bama is uneducated. He was a professor of Constitutional Law at Chicago. And many other African Americans are also well-educated, or even capable of making the number of their nouns and verbs agree.

2) Slavery implies you are up for sale by others, without your consent. That is the difference between slavery and capitalism. Of course there are ethical concerns around selling your vote, but we've made a choice to legalize that, so long as the money doesn't go directly to you but rather goes to political campaigns. The people still get to vote you out if you're actively evil and someone can convince them of that.

3) Slavery is not over by any means. Legalized slavery in the United States ended as a result of the civil war, but millions of people are enslaves around the world, including tens of thousands of American teens at high risk for being trafficked into slavery. Check out the Polaris Project, or River of Innocents [riverofinnocents.com] .

Doesn't surprise me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504064)

"There ought to be a law!" -Democratic Party Mantra

Re:Doesn't surprise me... (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504358)

That's every parties mantra apart from possibly the libertarians.

Can't wait 'til we get Duh Bush out! (4, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504066)

I'm sick of him selling-out to these megacorps. Damn Republican. What we need is a Democrat president who is not a puppet of the corporations.

Re:Can't wait 'til we get Duh Bush out! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504172)

I'm sick of him selling-out to these megacorps. Damn Republican. What we need is a Democrat president who is not a puppet of the corporations.

Same problem, different president, different corporations.

I think you'll find that the position lends itself to corruption.

Re:Can't wait 'til we get Duh Bush out! (1)

bondsbw (888959) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504296)

I think you'll find that the position lends itself to corruption.

Yet America does not try to fix the position, so that it becomes less corrupted... we live with it and pray for a person who isn't as corruptible as the last.

Re:Can't wait 'til we get Duh Bush out! (2)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504178)

What we need is a ... president who is not a puppet of the corporations.

Ahahahaha
hahahahaha
ahahahahaha
*wheeze*
ahahahaha

Re:Can't wait 'til we get Duh Bush out! (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504288)

*wheeze*

Damn ... people on SlashDot really are getting old.

Re:Can't wait 'til we get Duh Bush out! (2)

Rudeboy777 (214749) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504270)

Damn Republican. What we need is a Democrat president who is not a puppet of the corporations.

Why does it have to be a Democrat or Republican? What we REALLY need is a viable alternative.

Re:Can't wait 'til we get Duh Bush out! (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504292)

What we need is a Democrat president who is not a puppet of the corporations.

Yeah, being tied to public labor unions and intellectual property companies (Hollywood) is at least 3 times the awesome.

Re:Can't wait 'til we get Duh Bush out! (1)

anyGould (1295481) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504442)

I'm sick of him selling-out to these megacorps. Damn Republican. What we need is a Democrat president who is not a puppet of the corporations.

Hate to break it to you, but until people can run for office without needing millions of dollars, corporate interests will always take precedence, since they're the only ones that can pay for it.

It's getting bad, even at the local level - to make a serious run in my city's last election was in the $100K range for mayor, $60K for alderman. You don't get that kind of cash together without owing a few favors.

Civil law, not criminal law. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504078)

Copyright infringement is supposed to be CIVIL LAW, not CRIMINAL LAW.

If the USA is to continue this trend of criminalizing everything under the sun, then perhaps the next thing we need to criminalize is when elected and appointed government officials violate the US Constitution. Let's make that a felony.

Re:Civil law, not criminal law. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504398)

If they go far enough in violating the US Constitution, perhaps, just perhaps, it may become a capital offense. One can only hope, at this point....and stock up on plenty of ammo.

Good use of time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504084)

So glad the people who should be focusing on the economy and jobs are instead focusing on more ways to wiretap us and prosecute quasi-theft.

Re:Good use of time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504466)

Hey moron, in case you haven't noticed, IP is a huge part of the American economy. Strengthening IP laws IS focusing on the economy and jobs. I realize a lot of anti-copyright idiots like to pretend that copyright infringement doesn't actually hurt anyone (mostly because it makes them feel better about themselves), but in fact it does harm the economy.

First Up: Public Key Encryption (1)

ATestR (1060586) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504108)

One of the first new rules to be established will be making it illegal to use Quantum Public Key Encryption [slashdot.org] .

Scarier is wiretap (5, Informative)

redelm (54142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504110)

"Streaming" is mostly a clarification of law, much more threatening is the authorization of wiretap, perviously allowed only in "serious" cases and terrorism.

The death penalty soon! (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504120)

Because streaming music is a crime worse than murdering kittens with a sledgehammer.

I want my vote back. (1, Funny)

noobermin (1950642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504136)

I expected someone who would listen to the people instead of the will of large corps. I was wrong.

Re:I want my vote back. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504308)

Buyer beware mother fucker!

How could media ever survive... (3, Insightful)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504138)

with free shows paid for by advertising, like TV or radio? Uh, wait a second....

Still no justice for... (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504146)

Nobody has gone to jail for crashing the world economy.
Nobody has gone to jail for authorizing or committing acts of torture.
Nobody has gone to jail for placing unconstitutional wiretaps.

Yet we have room in our prisons for people who share files. It is more clear than ever that the US justice system exists to protect the powerful against the less powerful. There is no justice system, there is an exploitation system.

Re:Still no justice for... (1)

noobermin (1950642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504180)

I'd mod you up if I could.

Re:Still no justice for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504300)

Madoff went to jail for helping crash the economy.

Doesn't mean copyright shouldn't be a civil matter.

Re:Still no justice for... (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504324)

Madoff had nothing to do with the financial crisis.

Re:Still no justice for... (4, Insightful)

Insightfill (554828) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504464)

Madoff went to jail for helping crash the economy.

To be more specific: Madoff went to jail for personally scamming and lying to the rich and powerful, costing them money.

The trail between him and his victims is very clear. The trail between the victims and the perps in the more recent problems isn't as clear. Also: Madoff did scam the rich and powerful, whereas the more recent financial crises have worked out quite well for those who already had money. Bonuses are bigger than ever on Wall Street, but "Main Street", not so much.

No Value (1)

virb67 (1771270) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504164)

Anything that can perfectly reproduced instantly, easily and for free has no value. Sorry.

Re:No Value (1)

noobermin (1950642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504320)

I think this is something that this whole "piracy" deal has taught us. You can't protect information like you could protect a corn stash or precious metals. People have tried to make software like physical objects in that you can only have a limited number of them, you can't copy them, etc, so they are as "scarce" as physical resources, and thus, they have value.

The thing is in reality, information, once it has been created,isn't scarce since it is easily reproducible. IP people need to accept that.

Note I said once it is created. The effort involved in creating isn't free, but the end result can't be assigned value. You can only put as much "price" on it as you put in effort. The idea itself has no intrinsic value.

Re:No Value (1)

cobrausn (1915176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504418)

Yeah, no. Value is arbitrary. Money is worth more than the paper it is printed on, and we give value to labor. If we make it have value, it does. As a software engineer, my job depends on this. And according to what you say, the only way to give value to software is to lock it down so hard that it can't be reproduced instantly, easily, and free, or to just not produce it at all because there is no incentive to do so. I prefer fiat value to that, mostly because I wouldn't have a job otherwise.

Re:No Value (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504514)

Unless you make it criminal. Criminalizing is the best way to make prizes blow through the roof. If anyone could grow his own potatoes, they would be cheap. If anyone could grow his own hemp, it would be as cheap as potatoes. Especially in the USA people must remember what alcohol laws did to boost crime.

Does anyone actually "stream" illegal content? (1)

pebbert (624675) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504210)

What's odd is the streaming aspect. Is downloading a torrent and then watching it "streaming"?

Re:Does anyone actually "stream" illegal content? (1)

kvvbassboy (2010962) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504264)

You must be new here.

Re:Does anyone actually "stream" illegal content? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504392)

Doesn't really matter what it actually means. Politicians don't have a clue, so corporations simply get to redefine as many words as their money can buy.

Re:Does anyone actually "stream" illegal content? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504408)

I think they're targeting people who rehost streams of sporting events. There was already a guy arrested [worldtvpc.com] for just such a site.

Stop Playing Gold (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504230)

The Socialist Messiah should worry more about Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Japan, and the US economy and jobless rate. Can't wait until 2012.

Re:Stop Playing Gold (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504488)

Can't wait until 2012.

Why's that? So you can have someone extend the exact same policies of the past decade, but sleep better about it at night because they attach an (R) to their name?

Also...
Socialist Messiah
...you're a fucking idiot.

AWOL Whitehouse (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504238)

I am so glad the Pres and Co. have sorted out the middle east, the world economy and that pesky natural disaster in Japan and have time to focus on enriching their pals in the MAFIAA. Barry you are truly the best benevolent ruler ever.

2012 election (0)

whizbang77045 (1342005) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504266)

Vote for the Sony sponsored candidate in 2012!

Like, watch a YouTube video? (0)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504278)

Are the majority of the American public going to be considered felons?

Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504286)

Ever since DMCA was passed, we've all known that we need to crack down on New Copyright Laws, but nobody would do it. It's reassuring that it's finally on the agenda.

"Illegal streaming not covered by criminal law"? (5, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504334)

Um, if there's no law covering it, how can it be illegal? Isn't everything by default legal until either a law is passed regarding it, or a court case interprets an already existing law to cover it?

Is this why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504384)

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/03/zediva/

Not Surprised. (1)

Veritas1980 (1008679) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504388)

There's been an FBI warning on DVD's and VHS for years saying that it is not for public screening, punishable by fines and/or jail time. I fail to see how streaming is different from public screening. I am by no means in support of our government in its attempt to strange the average joe over movies and mp3s, but it is what it is.

Ok, so pirates move to distributed/encrypted sys.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35504402)

I mean... this is just silly. They profoundly "don't get it".

I don't know why people get UPSET over this... the next move is very predictable (and already happening...). Pirates move to distributed and encrypted systems. You CANNOT stop that. By building barriers to stop the "low hanging fruit" pirating techniques, you're motivating people to create systems that YOU CAN'T STOP.

So go ahead and get that low hanging fruit... pirates have already won though. It's just a matter of time.

Note: I am not discussing the morality. I am simply discussing the logical/mathematical/algorithmic truth of the situation.

Constituents (5, Insightful)

mbrod (19122) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504432)

I wonder how many constituents wrote letters to the President about this serious problem? Of course, none did. We need a separation of Corporations and State, now.

Re:Constituents (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504502)

I wonder how many constituents wrote letters to the President about this serious problem? Of course, none did. We need a separation of Corporations and State, now.

Just who do you think the constituents are? You didn't imagine you were one of them, did you? Of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations. I believe the congressmen from Monsanto have the floor...

Streaming? (1)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | more than 3 years ago | (#35504440)

And what do they mean by "streaming"?
Will they go after sites like Orb.com, Slingbox, and PlayOn that stream things not necessarily intended to be streamed or in ways they didn't approve of (even over 3G not just your home network)? Seems content providers are trying to lock down their content too tightly. By doing so they lose the ability to id and track the product, our eyeballs, as we work around them.
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...