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!

Key Music Industry Lawyer Named EU Copyright Chief

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the conflict-of-what dept.

EU 74

halfEvilTech writes "The European Union's new point person on copyright policy won't take up her post until mid-April, but she's already stirring up controversy. That's because Maria Martin-Prat spent years directing 'global legal policy' for IFPI, the global recording industry's London-based trade group, before moving back into government. The appointment raises new questions about the past private-sector work of government officials, especially those crafting policy or issuing legal judgments on the same issues they once lobbied for."

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

Regulatory Capture at Work (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725124)

Yet another example of regulatory capture [wikimedia.org] at work.

Re:Regulatory Capture at Work (5, Insightful)

rajeevrk (1278022) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725294)

Yet another example of regulatory capture [wikimedia.org] at work.

Isnt it so much fun when the Industry shills get into policy positions? They make a lot of noise, and formulate some of the most arcane policies that just happen to fall right into the lap of the same industry groups that the policies are supposed to police :P can there be no end to the constant churn of people between lobbying groups and the lobbied groups?

P.S. - HTTPS on a wikipedia link! dont think i've seen that too often ;)

RkR

Re:Regulatory Capture at Work (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35730186)

This story reminds me of one that came up a few weeks ago. The one about a school teacher who was forced to resign because her students and colleagues found out she was in a porno 20 some odd years prior.

Of course, the question that nags at me is: Why the hell does this woman have to quit her job? When we have ex-copyright trolls, obviously unfit for ever holding a politcal office, being appointed to political office?

Being an ex-porn star has virtually no impact on one's ability to teach...

Being an ex-copyright troll stinks of corruption at all levels however...

Re:Regulatory Capture at Work (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35731764)

Well according to the uptight prudes' way of thinking, being an ex-porn-star does impact her ability to teach, because she'll beam dirty unclean sinful thoughts right into the students' heads (along with the usual lib'rul indoctrination all public schools give children) causing the classroom to break out into a big orgy, with interracial and possibly even gay sex.

DDG, the search engine that prefers https :) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35730410)

if you use https://duckduckgo.com/ [duckduckgo.com] as search engine, it will give you https links where they exist, like for wikipedia/wiktionary etc etc

http://ddg.gg/ [ddg.gg]

Re:Regulatory Capture at Work (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 3 years ago | (#35730820)

One would expect that, after all the problems we had in the past, we'd be more vigilant. Nope. The times of corporatism/fascism are coming back again. I wonder if the European Union's hidden agenda was to create the IV Reich, this time without weapons?

Re:Regulatory Capture at Work (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#35730910)

OTOH, let's say she would have worked for, say, Nestle. What then? People would have complained that someone with no experience in the field is becoming the "EU Copyright Chief". So we have to choose someone with experience in the field. That person would probably have some opinion on the matter. So if they choose someone with the same opinions as the /. crowd, its fine; if he/she is against the /. ideas, he/she's bad.
Now, I agree that you can always take someone who is an expert on copyright, but was not working for the industry, but: a) You could always "accuse" him of having no hands-on experience with copyright, only academic knowledge, and b) You could always dig some paper he wrote 10 years ago where he said something for/against a particular issue, a position someone would disapprove of.

Bottom-line: No matter who we choose, someone, somewhere will find something to complain about.

Hello Europe (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725160)

Hasn't this same thing been going on in America for ages? You work as a corporate lawyer, then you lobby, then you get elected. When you're in office, you build in a few loopholes, and when you get ousted you work as a lawyer exploiting those loopholes.

There is no more democracy (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725162)

We now live in a global oligarchy. What is the peaceful solution to this?

In the meantime, DO NOT GIVE YOUR MONEY TO THESE PEOPLE. Yes, I know you love your new Lord of the Rings DVD box set, but you're financing the copyright cartels. Either pirate or go without.

Re:There is no more democracy (2)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725390)

You are simply not reaching enough eyes and ears posting here. And the people who have the most access to eyes and ears will not let you speak. What can be done?

Re:There is no more democracy (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725592)

Well first off, you can forget about a peaceful solution. 'What can be done?' now becomes a little easier to answer.

Re:There is no more democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725764)

Like anyone is going to risk their lives/comfort to fight over copyright.

Re:There is no more democracy (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725938)

Exactly... So there ya go... There will be no 'solution' forthcoming.

Re:There is no more democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35726442)

Copyright is only one aspect of this. It happens in all industries, from food production to warfighting.

Re:There is no more democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35727356)

Go RAF, Go!

Re:There is no more democracy (2)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#35728304)

Well first off, you can forget about a peaceful solution. 'What can be done?' now becomes a little easier to answer.

I'm sure you're not suggesting shooting music industry executives from a distance using a scoped rifle. Or arranging to have their cocaine cut with cyanide. Or rigging their Ferraris to explode. Because the first two would be too good for them and the last would be a waste of a Ferrari.

Re:There is no more democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725816)

What needs to be done is create ad campaigns that target the vast majority of people that care more about Dancing With The Stars than their rights in the "dig.. digtial... digital?" age. These people are already conditioned to accept anything nowadays because "that's just how it is". You can forget about anything technical. But... a lot of these people pay property taxes. Do they know the big RIAA/MPAA members sit on billions and billions of dollars worth of property, get protection of said property on the taxpayers' dime, and don't pay a penny in intellectual property taxes?

Re:There is no more democracy (2)

seifried (12921) | more than 3 years ago | (#35729274)

I'm teaching my children that "sharing is caring" and you need to route your Internet traffic through a VPN provider in a country with strong privacy laws.

Re:There is no more democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740720)

Could you name a few countries with strong privacy laws? Preferably with a decent standard of living. I'm considering moving.

Re:There is no more democracy (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 3 years ago | (#35730622)

We could peacefully ask who elected this guy. IIRC in democracy you elect people who change the law. That's been a joke lately, so I wonder if enforcing some laws means respecting authority (the ultimate authority is the decision of people expressed by vote) or it is an attack on democracy, whose perpetrators we usually call terrorists when their skin is of a different color.

Re:There is no more democracy (1)

beanspud (187388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35734806)

Third option: buy CDs and DVDs second-hand. Side-step the enemy and support local business.

Prat (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725230)

The name that speaks for its holder.

Obligatory anagram (2)

srussia (884021) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725252)

Ram A Rat In Mi Prat

People Entering Politics (1, Interesting)

Master Moose (1243274) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725256)

The summary reads like this is of extra concern. Would there be concern if a previous Anti-Copyright campaigner got the seat? Would you rather someone with no knowledge on the topic got the position?

Peoples knowledge, experience and ideals always stems from where a person has come from: Be it business, culture, arts, community.

I would wager that most people aim for positions in political office because they either know about, care for, or are passionate in some way about the seat for which they aim. (and yes, passion can come from being paid to care)

Re:People Entering Politics (2)

Znork (31774) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725474)

Would there be concern if a previous Anti-Copyright campaigner got the seat?

A lot less, as they actually would represent the people and their interest rather than a specific economic group.

passion can come from being paid to care

Eh, no. It cant.

Re:People Entering Politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725486)

I would wager that most people aim for positions in political office because they either know about, care for, or are passionate in some way about the seat for which they aim. (and yes, passion can come from being paid to care)

And from the politicians that I've seen, dealt with and worked with, I'd wager that they do it for their own personal gain. The only exceptions to this, have been those few who are genuinely interested in social improvement, or acting out of necessity because the incumbent political system has forced their backs to the wall - generally revolutionary.

Re:People Entering Politics (2)

next_ghost (1868792) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725512)

The summary reads like this is of extra concern. Would there be concern if a previous Anti-Copyright campaigner got the seat? Would you rather someone with no knowledge on the topic got the position?

If an anti-copyright campaigner got the seat, the copyright lobby would obviously freak out WAY more than this. There are tons of lawyers out there who know the copyright and patent law inside out but are not affiliated with either side of the copyright war. Your argument about "someone with no knowledge on the topic" is a false dichotomy.

Re:People Entering Politics (1)

517714 (762276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725554)

I don't think they seriously considered Peter Sunde's application for the position.

Re:People Entering Politics (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725672)

The concern isn't over the experience. It's over corruption of the political process. That is what this is. It is to protect industry interests.

I would wager that most people aim for positions in political office because they either know about, care for, or are passionate in some way about the seat for which they aim. (and yes, passion can come from being paid to care)

You would lose that wager. Most people who enter big time politics are narcissistic sociopaths. Those that aren't are pushed aside. That just the nature of the business.

Re:People Entering Politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35726236)

I'd love to see DVD Jon get the copyright policy position. He's very knowledgeable on subject matter.

Re:People Entering Politics (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | more than 3 years ago | (#35728000)

Would there be concern if a previous Anti-Copyright campaigner got the seat?

Yes.

Would you rather someone with no knowledge on the topic got the position?

No.

You need people with appropriate skills in these positions. It is surely not too difficult to find a lawyer (for example) that has practiced on both sides of centre when it comes to copyright issues. Anyone that has chosen to work as an integral part of a single issue lobby group on either side has demonstrated their bias and unsuitability for a public policy job in the area.

Re:People Entering Politics (1)

xophos (517934) | more than 3 years ago | (#35730034)

don't try to be clever, it's corruption all the way up. ;-)

It's part of the US/EU war (3, Insightful)

Coeurderoy (717228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725260)

So the US lobbies successfully imposed to EU the same stupidity that they got at home...

Basically copyrights and patents are the "semi religious framework" that justifies sending money from all over the world, and preferably reasonably rich countries to the US without stating the obvious, we should anyway because the US got the biggest army and secret services...

this sucks

Let's just put Manson in charge of women's issues (3, Insightful)

mykos (1627575) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725332)

Seriously, why do they keep putting people in charge who only see one side of the issues? Why even have the position at all?

Wouldn't it just be easier to just come out and say "We are the puppets of the copyright industry and we will go with whatever they say". It's honest, to the point, and everyone knows where they stand.

Re:Let's just put Manson in charge of women's issu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725424)

So you think Charles Manson is a good analogy for industry-backed enforcement against casual piracy?

Re:Let's just put Manson in charge of women's issu (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 3 years ago | (#35749622)

> So you think Charles Manson is a good analogy for industry-backed enforcement against casual piracy?

That all depends what kind of mechanisms and punishments this "enforcement" is going to depend on, doesn't it?

If the penalty for minor infringement was raised to imprisonment "as a deterrent", then I'd guess that the overall damage to the quality of life of the general public would be greater overall than that caused by Manson, no matter how horrific his relatively few murders were. I'd even dare to say that this might be true even if we're not talking about imprisonment, but rather, extreme financial hardship, like imposing bankruptcy. And perhaps it might be comparable even if we'd only be talking about outlawing anonymity, because of it's chilling effects on self-expression.

And before you accuse me of putting up strawmen, think about this: you yourself emphasized casual, and the more casual an infringement is, the more relatively draconian and invasive are the measures which would be needed to effectively stamp it out.

Re:Let's just put Manson in charge of women's issu (1)

e9th (652576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725684)

Yes. Why couldn't they come up with somebody more even handed, like Obama's IP Czar. [arstechnica.com]

who could ever forget abbey joseph cohen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725414)

whose very name evokes all form of nostalgia (dear), gender (both), chosenism (usury) & unity of same. she's a stock tout, usually wheeled out before another horrific wealth disintegration is scheduled.

as for deaths' pr guys; they usually sound as though they've sucked hot tea up their nose, & every word/breath includes some suffering.

It tells me one thing... (1)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725420)

Europe is as broken and corrupt as the US is, I wonder how long it takes before they really drown, the US is almost there, dunno the status of Europe.

Re:It tells me one thing... (1)

next_ghost (1868792) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725768)

Yes, Europe is broken and corrupt but at least we have some levers to make our politicians listen once in a while. And European politicians obviously don't like to bend over to US corporations too often. That's why software patents are not valid in Europe and ACTA will probably fail in European Parliament because it doesn't cover protected geographical indications.

Re:It tells me one thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725986)

ACTA will probably fail in European Parliament because it doesn't cover protected geographical indications.

...right!! Thank you for admitting EP doesn't give a rat's *** about people's rights! They care about some Canadian winery putting a Baby or Pink "Champagne" on the market, or some US dairy farm selling Feta cheese. It's all about BUSINESS and MONEY, and not at all about citizens. That's also the reason patent and copyright terms are out of whack, while they are both supposed to stimulate, innovation and creativity, respectively, patents only need to exist for 20 years while copyrights go on up to 120 years.

Re:It tells me one thing... (1)

next_ghost (1868792) | more than 3 years ago | (#35730682)

Thank you for admitting EP doesn't give a rat's *** about people's rights!

Well, that was pretty much covered by "Yes, Europe is broken and corrupt", wasn't it?

She's only in it for the money.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725466)

...that she'll be making after she leaves the gov.

How that is legal? (1)

Tei (520358) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725516)

This make absolutelly no sense. A lobbyist putting in charge? Whats worse than that?
I don't pay the taxes so ...well.. lobbyist lawyers control me!

WTF!?

FUCK WITH THIS PERSON!

Wannabe Thomas Becket (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725544)

Let's hope she just cuts all of her prior connections and devotes herself to her new duty.

Reminds me of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725872)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OExykL5QnXY

you do need a certain level of expertise (2, Interesting)

boguslinks (1117203) | more than 3 years ago | (#35725894)

If you're going to appoint an attorney in charge of government copyright policy, the thing to do is to get someone with relevant experience. Would you prefer an attorney whose expertise is in Animal Husbandry to get this job?

And if you think it's one of the "bad guys" instead of one of the "good guys" (girls) getting the job... well, working attorneys in copyright (and other "intellectual property" areas) are usually working to protect and monetize the "property" in question. You'd probably have a tough time coming up with a good list of candidates, with good resumes, for the job who share your ideology (or mine) on the issue. Someone like Stephan Kinsella would be both qualified and share our sentiments, but I'm sure he doesn't want the job, nor the job him.

Re:you do need a certain level of expertise (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35727160)

Would you prefer an attorney whose expertise is in Animal Husbandry to get this job?

I would prefer somebody who represents the general population, not a tiny vested interest, and not your false dichotomy.

Expertise in copyright law, not policy, is a technical function that should be done by juniors and not policy people.

The fact that I even need to tell you that shows that you are probably part of that vested interest and untrustworthy.

Re:you do need a certain level of expertise (1)

fox171171 (1425329) | more than 3 years ago | (#35728386)

And clearly bank robbers should be hired to create bank security... it only makes sense.

Re:you do need a certain level of expertise (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#35729070)

See : conflict of interest.

Re:you do need a certain level of expertise (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 3 years ago | (#35729116)

Yeah, but even Stephan Kinsella would be a bad choice because he immediately morphs into a complete retard once you try to actually question him on his ideas.

Re:you do need a certain level of expertise (1)

MrL0G1C (867445) | more than 3 years ago | (#35730266)

Would you prefer an attorney whose expertise is in Animal Husbandry to get this job?

Yes, Hell, I'd prefer a cow was given this job, that way, current copyright laws would be a little safer.

On the plus side at least Gaddafi will have a job (2, Funny)

Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) | more than 3 years ago | (#35726042)

....when they start appointing new judges to the European Court of Human Rights.

He's a 'former civil servant.....put in charge of dossiers' directly related to his former employer/dictatorship....

This will likely be unpopular... (5, Insightful)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 3 years ago | (#35726060)

My opinion will probably be an unpopular one on Slashdot, but a job's a job. There should be an impartiality regulator in all goernments, something of an Inquisition who can thoroughly investigate the lives, private and public, of high level government employees. I understand the recording industry and actual careers like law are more than a little different, but just because someone has been working for McDonalds for a few years doesn't mean they're going to go work for KFC and actively sabotage them. In practice, in the US, officials with this background have proven time and time again they are NOT impartial, but all people have the right to quit one job and work somewhere else. Everyone here treats a recording industry job like the slaver tatoo in Fallout 2. A permanent black mark that everyone will recognise on sight.

I don't mean to say we shouldn't care where our officials come from, by all means be wary, but not everyone is going to be evil (I think that may be the biggest compliment I've ever paid anyone).

Re:This will likely be unpopular... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35726754)

If McDonald paid them enough, you can be damn sure that employee would gladly sabotage whoever he was told to.

I have great mistrust of anyone who accepts a pay check from the music industry. If they don't have a problem with doing so now, you better believe they won't when sitting on the bench.

Re:This will likely be unpopular... (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 3 years ago | (#35727162)

I understand the recording industry and actual careers like law are more than a little different, but just because someone has been working for McDonalds for a few years doesn't mean they're going to go work for KFC and actively sabotage them.

I think a better metaphor would be:

just because someone has been working for McDonalds for a few years doesn't mean they're going to go work for the Vegan Rights group and actively sabotage them.

Anyone really supporting Vegan Rights (whatever those would be) wouldn't last working in McDonalds for a few years. Anyone who could stomache it already has a non-partial worldview.

Possibly the same issue here.

Re:This will likely be unpopular... (2)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 3 years ago | (#35727624)

This line of reasoning is what most recent US Supreme Court nominees have used in their hearings. They say their job is to determine the meaning of the law impartially, according to precedent, and the wording of statutes. Congress makes the law, they do not. They do not "legislate from the bench", that is, make things up or creatively interpret wording in predictably biased ways. Of course this impartiality is an idealistic view.

I would be more concerned with the quality of her reasoning and thinking than her career. But I fear that her choice of employer is indicative of poor judgement and poor critical thinking skills. Possibly she may rise above her chosen indoctrination, having always secretly doubted her employer's sophistries and rationalizations, and recognized their real motives, seeing through them. Or she may suffer a revelation and a change of heart. But I doubt it. Much more likely she is of one mind with the music industry's view. So she will sally forth to tilt against windmills on a new battleground.

Legal professionals are annoyed that geeks believe they by and large do not understand the implications of technology. But until they demonstrate better understanding, by never again attempting such obviously bad legislation as ACTA, COICA, DMCA, and others, we are correct to view the legal profession with skepticism on this matter. Until the day comes that it is unthinkable for a judge to say we "created a monster", over mere P2P software, they should be doubted. That's the sort of language that should be saved for nuclear weapons. If they do sort of understand, they are entirely too reluctant to admit it. Perhaps they fear losing their livelihood, have some unworthy ulterior motive for their actions. The IP lawyers and proponents are self interested, greedy, manipulative fools. They're only too willing to take music industry money in exchange for bad service, trying to bend nature with laws, trying to do what cannot be done. Better to have someone with competence but no legal experience, than one who is either an idiot or a cheat.

Re:This will likely be unpopular... (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#35729076)

See : Conflict of Interest.

Re:This will likely be unpopular... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35729706)

My opinion will probably be an unpopular one on Slashdot, but a job's a job. There should be an impartiality regulator in all goernments, something of an Inquisition who can thoroughly investigate the lives, private and public, of high level government employees. I understand the recording industry and actual careers like law are more than a little different, but just because someone has been working for McDonalds for a few years doesn't mean they're going to go work for KFC and actively sabotage them. In practice, in the US, officials with this background have proven time and time again they are NOT impartial, but all people have the right to quit one job and work somewhere else. Everyone here treats a recording industry job like the slaver tatoo in Fallout 2. A permanent black mark that everyone will recognise on sight.

I don't mean to say we shouldn't care where our officials come from, by all means be wary, but not everyone is going to be evil (I think that may be the biggest compliment I've ever paid anyone).

I don't know what you said but since you included a Fallout 2 reference I'll happily agree with you.

Re:This will likely be unpopular... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35731288)

The problem with this notion is that it is SOP for people go to back and forth between government and "private industry". Set up some stuff while in business, go get some legislation passed to make it work, go to another business the legislation has also helped and get a bunch of money, eventually get appointed to some other thing in government, lather, rinse, repeat.

This person has already been shown to be willing to take money against the public interest, and as such should not have this post either.

Re:This will likely be unpopular... (1)

ausrob (864993) | more than 3 years ago | (#35734128)

I understand what you are getting at, but I still think it is a little naive to think that someone who has spent considerable time representing the political will of a large and influential body such as the IFPI has more than a little conflict of interest. I'm not sure that it's fair to compare a minimum wage worker at McDonalds/KFC to the paid professionals who lobby for changes in copyright law and I don't it's reasonable to give her the benefit of the doubt in this instance. She was with the IFPI as recently as 2004 in the role of "Deputy General Counsel, Director of Legal Policy and Regulatory Affairs." and although it doesn't say when she left (so we're talking maybe five years ago?), it's far too recent for my liking. Would you put it past the music industry to plant someone sympathetic and formerly in their employ in the government? I wouldn't. This has conflict of interest written all over it.

She does not 'stir up controversy' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35726300)

Let's say Joe Bloggs is elected King of the United States.

This would be highly controversial.

But unless Joe Bloggs has actively done something controversial, he is not "stirring up controversy". To stir up controversy is an accusative phrase with negative connotations, and something that can be held against you: "Joe Bloggs is someone who stirs up controversy". In this case that is not warranted, because the appointment was not made by the person in question.

Why don't governments understand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35727686)

that there is a problem with copyright? Their propensity to hiring industry representatives seems to indicate that they don't get it or are being bought or both. Nobody agrees with the draconian measures employed by rightsholders except governments. I guess it's just not important enough to enough people for politicians to worry about their jobs especially when the industry is willing to spend so much money currying favor. I don't understand why people are not more outraged that their governments are being turned into copyright cops at taxpayes'r expense and contra to taxpayers' interests.

Foxes guarding the hen house (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35729740)

So how is this person unbiased? They spent years making money without legal stick promoting a position. Now they aren't being paid as much (I suppose), but have legal sticks. Has their opinion changed? Do they still collect a retainer from their past employers? Isn't this a bit like putting Tony Hayward (CEO of British Petroleum) in charge of environmental protection in the Gulf of Mexico?

Fox...Henhouse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35729826)

Fox meet Henhouse, Henhouse, meet Fox.

Copyright thief? (2)

fph il quozientatore (971015) | more than 3 years ago | (#35730134)

Funny, I read "copyright thief" at first.

Re:Copyright thief? (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 3 years ago | (#35730630)

I wish I could mod you up. Copyright Thief is probably quite an insightful job description. I am already robbed if I record my own music as a musician on my own CD.

Re:Copyright thief? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35740904)

Et tu, Brute?

she's an invalid (1)

biancmb (888501) | more than 3 years ago | (#35730310)

corrupted bitch

"It's not a bug... (1)

cyberfin (1454265) | more than 3 years ago | (#35731286)

... it's a feature".

Music is the weapon? (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#35732860)

Give it a few more years and the world's enforcement on music policies will make reality look like the ill-fated Aerosmith arcade shooter Revolution X where faceless goons with guns are everywhere trying to bust people for owning music.

Parliamentary question (2)

mmcuh (1088773) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733384)

Two MEPs, Christian Engström from the Swedish Pirate Party and Marietje Schaake from Dutch liberal party D66, have submitted a formal question [wordpress.com] to the European Commission (the EU government). The commission is obliged to reply within a couple of weeks, though there will probably be no real answer.

miltary police three (1)

cifey (583942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35733722)

Much easier to make something new and useful than to figure out how old paradigms can make money out of something new and useful. Can we just require any new technology provide a healthy retirement community for those vested in older business structures?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?