×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

151 comments

Frederic Mitterrand ? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36237908)

The one who think children who download movies should have their internet rights revoked, but doesn't see anything wrong with a cineast raping a 13 year old girl ? Glad he has his priorities straight.

Re:Frederic Mitterrand ? (3, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238108)

It doesn't matter what Mitterrand thinks of Polanski's case, Polanski is a French citizen and thus is protected from extradition from his country - Mitterrand couldn't do anything short of changing the law...

And we all know the shit storm that changing laws to suit the US causes here on Slashdot...

Re:Frederic Mitterrand ? (2)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238262)

Mitterrand couldn't do anything short of changing the law...

Still, he didn't have to sympathize with Polanski. What a dumbass. The guy is a the head of the ministry of culture... And he doesn't know squat about the net or information as a whole. And what does culture produces exactly?

Just like the rest of them. We need new politicians.

Re:Frederic Mitterrand ? (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238550)

We need new politicians.

Then quit reelecting the old ones! DUH! And stop the damn whining about how you have 'no choice'.

Re:Frederic Mitterrand ? (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#36239830)

The problem is that political stability is a given for most people these days. They're not hungry anymore, so why bother?

We'll keep electing the same cretins until something really bad happens. Then, we'll wake up, but it'll be too late.

In the meantime, we're whining. What else can we do? Build a protest website?

Re:Frederic Mitterrand ? (0)

celle (906675) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238718)

"And what does culture produces exactly?"

I won't get into national identity issues with you just point out that tourism brings in a lot of money to the treasury.

Damn fucking idiot.

Just because we think a 13 year old is too young here doesn't mean we have the right to shove that idea down the throat of someone who doesn't. I'll remind you America didn't think that way(13 is to young) either a few decades ago.

Re:Frederic Mitterrand ? (2)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#36239350)

The problem with your argument is that Polanski's crime isn't statutory rape. Its was forcible rape with assault (he beat her into submission) and sodomy that happened to be of a 13 year old girl.

Re:Frederic Mitterrand ? (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 2 years ago | (#36240532)

I'm going to go with the quote from my other post here, ”he had sex with me. He wasn’t hurting me and he wasn’t forceful or mean or anything like that, and really I just tried to let him get it over with.”.

While it's still wrong it sure doesn't sound like "beat her into submission" fits either.

Re:Frederic Mitterrand ? (1)

speedwaystar (1124435) | more than 2 years ago | (#36241158)

that's actually completely incorrect. there's no suggestion at all of forcible assault or beating, nor has there ever been. read the case documents. they're all available online.

do you think ANYONE, let alone high profile politicians, would support Polanski if he had used violence? do you think his victim would be calling for an end to the witch hunt (as she has for over a decade now) if he'd used violence?

Re:Frederic Mitterrand ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36239582)

Just because we think a 13 year old is too young here doesn't mean we have the right to shove that idea down the throat of someone who doesn't. I'll remind you America didn't think that way(13 is to young) either a few decades ago.

He raped her HERE. Right in the middle of HERE where we all think raping 13 year olds is wrong. And yes, even 'few decades ago', people thought RAPING 13 YEAR OLDS was wrong.

Re:Frederic Mitterrand ? (1)

NoSig (1919688) | more than 2 years ago | (#36239116)

Since he can't do anything else, the only way he can hide the fact that he isn't calling the shots on the situation is to pretend that the only thing he can do is actually what he wants to do. People really do that kind of thing, especially people who crave power so extremely that they do what it takes to become the political head of a country.

Re:Frederic Mitterrand ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36238634)

He could call him on being a rapist. Unless France has far more restrictions on free speech than I thought, there was nothing preventing him from doing that.

Re:Frederic Mitterrand ? (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#36239878)

He did something illegal in the country he was in. Period. This has nothing to do with rape, or with anything else really.

He did something illegal, and he bloody well knew it was illegal. I mean, it's illegal in most countries around the world to rape a woman. Even more to rape a child.

He then escaped the country to escape the charges, because facing his own crime was too much for him. Two counts so far: A criminal and a coward.

Tourism is fine. Sex tourism is generally considered borderline.

Re:Frederic Mitterrand ? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#36241796)

That's the thing about jurisdictions and the justice game. There are limits on borders and time and on and on. He "escaped." This means he won. It's really that simple.

This is an essential part of justice, believe it or not. We have statues of limitations for a lot of reasons and they are of general benefit to everyone. He was successful in "getting away" and we should applaud him for it. And if you can't find it within yourself to applaud it, then place blame where it belongs -- the people or system who failed to apprehend him properly and quickly when they had the chance... or whatever the cause. But if you dare think about taking away the limitations on justice, then you will find that an "unlimited justice system" will bring down hell on all.

Re:Frederic Mitterrand ? (1, Interesting)

umghhh (965931) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238580)

Note that while you bashing Polanski you miss out on the fact that alleged rape victim does not mind Mr Polanski and the whole issue was probably cause by hysterical and publicity hungry public attorneys in a country where an orals sex between two consenting individuals may lead to a political tremors. This said Mitterand is an asshole there is no question about it.

Re:Frederic Mitterrand ? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36239052)

You're completely uninformed. The victim either forgiving him or deciding to leave the event behind is not the same thing as her rescinding her previous testimony. http://www.radaronline.com/sites/default/files/RomanPolanskiTranscripts.pdf See p.95, p96 to see that in her testimony, she denies having given consent.

Re:Frederic Mitterrand ? (2)

speedwaystar (1124435) | more than 2 years ago | (#36241228)

according to testimony, on arriving home the girl said nothing to her parents about Polanski but told her boyfriend over the phone. her mother was listening in on the second line, and called the police.

Re:Frederic Mitterrand ? (2)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 2 years ago | (#36239090)

I won't try to defend Polanski having a sex with/raping/whatever a 13 year old girl. I will however ask you and those modding you up to actually read about the specifics about the case.

In the words of the girl years later: "he had sex with me. He wasn’t hurting me and he wasn’t forceful or mean or anything like that, and really I just tried to let him get it over with."

Oh, and of course about the legal quagmire that resulted in him fleeing the US (once again, the girl): "My views as a victim, my feelings as a victim, or my desires as a victim were never considered or even inquired into by the district attorney prior to the filing. It is clear to me that because the district attorney's office has been accused of wrongdoing, it has recited the lurid details of the case to distract attention from the wrongful conduct of the district attorney's office as well as the judge who was then assigned to the case."

Basically it seems that she never considered herself a ”victim”. Also, IIRC Polanski did plead guilty to something like ”sexual misconduct with a minor” as part of a settlement and everyone was ok with sentencing him to a slap on the wrist and then at the very last minute the prosecution and judge decided to go ahead and pursue all six counts of criminal behaviour .

Re:Frederic Mitterrand ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36239888)

Ummm, if she didn't consider herself a victim, why we she refer to herself as one multiple times?

Also the "really I just tried to let him get it over with" sure as hell doesn't sound like consensual sex to me.

Re:Frederic Mitterrand ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36240416)

Why don't you read some of the other stuff she's said about it? ya know, get her perspective.

Re:Frederic Mitterrand ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36241248)

So reading her testimony before the court and his plea bargain sure isn't enough. Funny how professional debaters on the internet always accuse others of never having researched the facts when in truth it is they who never researched them in the first place. You're unlucky, I actually researched the case and can actually call you on the falsehoods you help propagate. See http://www.radaronline.com/sites/default/files/RomanPolanskiTranscripts.pdf, p95 and beyond. So according to her testimony, he gave her alcohol and drugs then had intercourse with her while she was asking him to stop and that does not count as rape ?

Re:Frederic Mitterrand ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36239230)

As long as the 13 yo girl pays for the movies she watches I don't see what's wrong with that...

Now to be Noisy (1)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 2 years ago | (#36237910)

I think that calm of Mitterand's was the lull before the storm. Good!

Re:Now to be Noisy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36237994)

I think that calm of Mitterand's was the lull before the storm. Good!

The calm before the lulz.

Conroy vs. Sarkozy (4, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 2 years ago | (#36237920)

FIGHT!

French President Nicolas Sarkozy called repeatedly for Internet regulation and more copyright protection.....

I really, really hate these guys. They are censoring our right to free expression of ideas, and hiding it behind copyright and child "protection".

Of course it's really all about control of the masses, in order to silent dissent. Last "great idea" I heard coming out of the US District of Chaos is that citizens will be required to get licenses to log on and speak their minds. Hopefully this idea dies immediately.

Re:Conroy vs. Sarkozy (3, Insightful)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238008)

Don't hate the representative - hate the voter.

Modern representative democracy is the biggest exercise in responsibility denial.

Did your colleague vote Sarkozy? Explain to him what he's responsible for. Let him learn what he has done, and he may change.

Blame FPTP (3, Interesting)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238068)

First-past-the-post voting systems are a parody of democracy, and that's how conservative, or more accurately fascists like Sarkozy get their "majority."

Re:Blame FPTP (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238158)

FPTP is awful, yes.

It doesn't help that the UK government is now going to pretend that we want FPTP, following a recent FPTP vs AV referendum. (AV is also a joke, nonsensically giving more weight to the secondary choices of the voters of the less popular parties - but AV would never have won out as no-one wanted it anyway.)

get real : Sarkozy's as "Fascist" as Obama (2)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 2 years ago | (#36239136)

Calling people fascist because of their copyright stance ? Come on.

And copyright legislation is about the free expression of other's ideas. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Besides, France's left is as pro-copyright as Sarkozy or Mitterand, easily. You see when it comes to destroying actual freedom of speech, not the "right" to download free porn, it's the left that's championing arresting people for promoting political ideas on blogs.

Re:Conroy vs. Sarkozy (4, Informative)

e70838 (976799) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238150)

I am a french voter. There was almost no alternative to Sarkozy and it was not so predictable that Sarkozy would be so terrible.
By putting DSK in jail, you have removed the most promising candidate for next election.
I promise I will not vote for Sarkozy even if that means voting for the worst asshole.

Re:Conroy vs. Sarkozy (2)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238222)

I assumed Sarkozy asked the Americans nicely to pull an Assange on DSK.

"Suicide" has gone out of fashion since David Kelly, and, well, we know Mitterrand's feelings on relations with kids, so straight adult sexual assault is the choice for getting rid of your opposition these days.

Re:Conroy vs. Sarkozy (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238266)

I promise I will not vote for Sarkozy even if that means voting for the worst asshole.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.[/sarcasm]

Yet again a demonstration of how it's dumb voting on people rather than being allowed to vote more directly on issues/policies. This Sarkozy guy may be great apart from the copyright issue. I don't know, nor do I really care.. I don't see the point getting involved in a system where some things are going to be shit even if I was the only voter.

Re:Conroy vs. Sarkozy (3, Insightful)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238464)

Yet again a demonstration of how it's dumb voting on people rather than being allowed to vote more directly on issues/policies.

Yeah, that'll go well.


Ballot - Select One
[ ] Rationality and responsibility
[X] Give me more stuff

Re:Conroy vs. Sarkozy (5, Insightful)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238520)

"Rationality" is a euphemism for "agree with me".

And "responsibility" is a euphemism for "help the rich".

Re:Conroy vs. Sarkozy (1)

Eil (82413) | more than 2 years ago | (#36240890)

By putting DSK in jail, you have removed the most promising candidate for next election.

If an (attempted) rapist was the "most promising" candidate, France is in even worse shape than I thought.

Re:Conroy vs. Sarkozy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36241586)

You appear to have spelled 'alleged' quite badly.

Re:Conroy vs. Sarkozy (3, Insightful)

LilGuy (150110) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238254)

This is the laziest response to the age-old problem of representation in government. "Well the people voted for X."

Who exactly votes for the people who get to run for office? Nobody? I wouldn't say that. Money votes for the initial candidates. That money comes from industry. The people who run are those who can best afford to run, and what that means is they are connected enough throughout industry and politics to be a viable option. This SEVERELY limits who the people will ultimately be ABLE to vote for, with the caveat that every single candidate has an agenda of their own that does not reflect the will of the people. Of course once the choices are sufficiently narrowed down for the people, and a single candidate is "elected", that candidate then owes much to their initial benefactors.

The word "democracy" as the world is wont to use it is a farce and nefarious doublespeak at best.

Re:Conroy vs. Sarkozy (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238352)

Rather than whining about the representative, I'm suggesting that it is every citizen's responsibility to tackle everyone who voted for him (or to justify to their fellow citizens their vote for him).

How this is "lazy" I cannot imagine.

Re:Conroy vs. Sarkozy (1)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 2 years ago | (#36241134)

When large groups of people try to agree on issues the bigger the group the harder it becomes to formulate an agreement that even the majority will accept without complaint. The best you can hope for is electing someone who will at least not make anything worse than it already is while at the same time at least trying to address and fix a few of the more managable problems. Radical changes require time. People tend to igonore the simple fact that it takes time to implement meaningful changes. The US has only been an ongoing concern for 250 years yet in that time we have faced and abolished slavery, inacted a constitution and bill of rights that still stand the test of time today, provided equal rights and protections to women, instituted protections in the workplace, implemented a minimum wage standard, and basically succeeded in insuring that opportunities for success is available for all. These just represent a few things the US has had to deal with. 50 years ago would anyone have believed that the US would ever have a black man for President. There has not been a time in the history of the US when there has not been big problems and turmoil to overcome. We have survived the Revolutionary War ,Civil War, Robber barons era, The Great depression, WW1,WW2, Womens Rights struggle, Korea, Civil Rights struggle, President Assasisnations,OPEC boycotts, rotating economic highs and lows, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. There has always been some crisis going on in the US that someone was upset about and shouting warnings that the sky is falling or that there is no more hope. The problems and ills we face today are nothing any worse than those we have already overcome and it really pisses me off when people don't take time to put things in prospective. Copyright laws? Please.

Re:Conroy vs. Sarkozy (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238866)

In the USA a party chooses by voting on who gets into the major ballots(minor ballots are more open).

The problem is in running a national level ad campaign is very expensive. So you not only have to ideology backers but money backers. Ross Perot showed us that only the stupid rich can afford it on their own, and the stupid rich are generally stupid about the wide variety of ideas needed to govern a mob.

Remember it isn't the best ideas that make it out but the best negotiators who can comprise their ideas enough to convince others to support them.

Re:Conroy vs. Sarkozy (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238290)

The thing is, you don't vote for an individual idea, you vote for a whole bunch of ideas. Obviously you don't agree with 100% of the program of the guy you vote for.

So what do you propose? Who would be "less stupid" than Sarkozy on this subject? Marine Le Pen?

Re:Conroy vs. Sarkozy (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238388)

If you believe that no candidates are worth voting for, less stupid would be to spoil your ballot paper, writing on it what you actually want.

Ten million people writing the same thing will be noticed - not least by fellow citizens as they realise they are not alone - even if it doesn't affect the immediate outcome in law. Sometimes you have to act directly. See also a lot of the Arab world and now Spain.

Re:Conroy vs. Sarkozy (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#36239804)

The thing is, everyone will find something objectionable to every presidential candidate. So what you are proposing (if followed by the population) would amouunt to have everyone vote blank. So what you are proposing is that the government should step down permanently. Basically, you are saying that what we know as "democracy" is worthless.

Fine. We are on some agreement there.

What you don't say is what you would propose to replace the current system... Care to elaborate?

Re:Conroy vs. Sarkozy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36238034)

Fredo Mitterrand for child protection ? See him defend Polanski in the french parliament http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xamlz5_frederic-mitterrand-defend-roman-po_news (in french).

Re:Conroy vs. Sarkozy (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238912)

Of course it's really all about control of the masses, in order to silent dissent.

Of course! Sarkozy and Conroy are plotting to destroy free speech, complete their diabolical mind-controlling machine, and take over the world with the help of all the rest of the politicians, who have only been pretended for multiple generations to be ineffectual, petty political backstabbers in order to fool the masses into believing their freedoms are safe! Why even spend the slightest bit of thought on it when it is so obviously true?

Yeah, yeah, mod me troll. I'm sure that'll teach me for being wrong.

Re:Conroy vs. Sarkozy (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 2 years ago | (#36239480)

Yep, its all about control.
Before Napster, YouTube, BitTorrent etc came along, the only way to get entertainment content distributed to the masses was to go through a big media company with the capability to distribute that content.
Same with news, if you wanted news you had to switch on CNN or Fox or NBC or whatever. Or go to one of the big news sites (also owned by CNN or Fox or NBC or whatever). Or you could read a newspaper (or visit a newspaper website). But now thanks to social media and other sources, your options for finding out whats going on in the world are growing, including options that give you all the stories that the old-guard has decided to ignore.

The dinosaur media companies are worried that they will lose their status as the arbiters of what content people consume (and the profit that goes with that status) and will do ANYTHING they can to stop that from happening. Some examples of where the big media companies have tried to protect their business models:
1.Richard Branson (of Virgin fame) wanted to open a movie theater chain in the UK designed to have the lowest possible overheads so he could offer lower ticket prices. Even though he was going to pay the studios exactly the same amount as every other cinema in the UK, the studios refused to allow him to operate this model
2.If you wish to have music (live or pre-recorded) in a venue, you have to deal with/pay license fees to "rights organizations" even if you have written permission from all the copyright holders of all the music being played.
3.Just as with live music, if you want to stream music online, you have to file mountains of paperwork and pay fees even if you have permission from the copyright holders of all the content you are streaming on your streaming station.
4.You can't produce a blu-ray disk (with menus and etc) that plays in a normal blu-ray player unless its a pressed disk (not a burnt one) and unless it is protected with AACS.
5.Attacks by Rupert Murdoch (and others) against the BBC (and specifically against the BBC online news site) because the BBC gives away content at a price (free) that is impossible for Murdoch and the others to match and still stay in business.
6.Any one of a number of cellphones where you can only load content (e.g. ringtones) from "authorized" sources.

Dead Calm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36237984)

I suppose one reason that these roundtables are so calm are because the MAFIAA already know that no amount of dissension from the hoi poloi is going to deter them from their on-going efforts to get restrictive IP laws established across the globe. Just let the little EFF guy have his say, debate him a bit, and then instruct your minions to go sink a large cash donation/bribe into various election campaigns/politician pockets around the globe. Debates are meaningless.

Excellent (4, Insightful)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 2 years ago | (#36237988)

I rather doubt I agree with everything Mr. Barlow said, even from the brief summary of his comments in the article I saw several statements that I might have argued with. I tend to be a moderate on this issue, neither favoring the total or near total evisceration of IP laws that some favor, nor the equally ridiculous calls from industry to expand them to the point that all content becomes immutable and unusable. Never the less, seeing this guy shake up the cozy little panel of "experts" makes me very happy. Nothing is going to change as long as the attitude that "the ground rules are all agreed on" is there. Until people realize that that there even is a another side in this debate, that there are radical content freedom people sitting opposite the radical content protection people, the middle ground can't be found.

Re:Excellent (4, Informative)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238066)

Never the less, seeing this guy shake up the cozy little panel of "experts" makes me very happy.

I quite agree. I think that as a famous musician, and thus as one of the very people that his opponents on the panel claim to protect, he was superbly placed to make his points. When all the rhetoric centres around promoting the arts, it's perfect to have a set of businessmen talking about it in the abstract, and then to have an actual artist come in with this:

I may be one of very few people in this room who actually makes his living personally by creating what these gentlemen are pleased to call "intellectual property."

He added that he was more interested in talking about "incentivizing creativity by people who create things, and not large institutions who prey on them and have for years."

If the big media guys want the public on their side, they'll have to do so by convincing us that syphoning money into the middle-men is a good idea, because I don't think the "protecting the artists" façade can hold for that much longer.

Re:Excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36241644)

The EFF really needs to fight extensions of copyright .. That's the one "rule of discussion" that keeps getting taken off the table. IF publishers want extreme measures for infringement, then more stuff has to hit PD sooner. If the punishment is so extreme, why does the law keep adding more works.. Who is PAYING for the extra 50 years of copyright the mouse is getting?

IP licensors got THEIR rents extended... But what did they PAY for those? Now they want protection INTENATIONALLY for stuff done 70 years ago... Very few works make money after the 30 year mark. This is about publishers not competing with used copies of their own stuff. These are the worst kind of people... Willing to burn down the farm because it's "theirs" .. Rather than share it.

I would say if a work is copyrighted, the Publisher must provide copies... If THEY can't then the work goes PD. I'm specifically thinking of the original Star Wars that is GONE.. Lucasfilm doesn't have a copy as it aired.. Therefore they should not get to enforce copyright on all of us that want the "Han shot first" edition as it is historically significant. They can have the 1997 one, but not the VHS/Laserdisc one because they didnt do the work to Maintain their "property".

Re:Excellent (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238350)

another side in this debate

On the other hand, to even begin to satisfy the demands of the other side, the USA and Europe would need to seriously reform their economic policies. Copyrights, patents, and trademarks are a major export for these countries, and strengthening the laws around them helps to improve the value of those exports. If you want to stop strengthening the laws, then you need to start working on ways to increase exports from other areas of the economy. That means you need to compete with countries where labor is cheap -- and short of cheapening your own labor, I am not really sure how you do that.

Re:Excellent (2)

w_dragon (1802458) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238648)

To compete with cheap labor you can either automate your processes to make your product cheaper still, which a lot of US manufacturers do, or you can work in industries where high quality is important and price is not so important. That second one is why Boeing is the largest exporter in the USA. Neither of those help people who don't want to learn a skill for a job, and keep learning for their entire careers, however.

Re:Excellent (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#36239236)

I would count automation as a form of "cheapening labor" -- you do not need to pay a salary or benefits for a robot. As for quality work, unfortunately most people tend to buy low quality/low cost imports rather than high quality domestic products, which is the cause of our trade deficit in the first place. The issue here is not really domestic jobs as much as it is resolving the deficit in trade, and copyrights/patents/trademarks/trade secrets are a large part of the US strategy for closing that gap.

Re:Excellent (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 2 years ago | (#36239096)

I don't see that 15 to 20 year copyright terms would significantly impact the export market. Is there really that much work from the early 90s still generating significant revenue? Is that income stream significant enough that it wouldn't be offset by the new derivative works created from the vast influx of public domain source material that could be created by a significant reduction in term length?

Re:Excellent (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#36239160)

Is that income stream significant enough that it wouldn't be offset by the new derivative works created from the vast influx of public domain source material that could be created by a significant reduction in term length?

Not when you are competing with derivative works from foreign markets, which may be legally imported. The goal here is to force other countries to trade: trade their labor for our entertainment and software.

Re:Excellent (2)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 2 years ago | (#36240036)

It's fake value. It's the old idea of monopoly. Yes, monopolies are very valuable-- to the owners. To the rest of us, not so much. In this case, they are of negative value. It costs us a great deal to maintain these wholly artificial monopolies. We spend much money on enforcement, court cases, DRM, and other completely ineffective wastes of effort to hold back the tide. And it is used to screw over the artists, the very people these laws are supposed to enable! We pass up even more money in the form of lost opportunities. We could save hugely on public libraries if it were legal for them to go digital. Our culture would be so much more searchable, researchable, mashable, and generally available. Novel, and very valuable uses could flourish. Instead, we have "debates" over such things as whether any form of "shifting" should be allowed. Shows just how screwy the discussion has been.

Perhaps worst of all is the climate. Many artists are so afraid of being ripped off that they act as their own worst enemies. Their efforts to make certain they aren't pirated instead ensure that they never rise out of obscurity. The public cannot discover their works. It's all locked away. And there's been an all too convenient complicity. Gives struggling artists great rationalizations for why they haven't succeeded. And many people support the existing system because they've been seduced by dreams of possibly becoming the next one of the very few really successful artists, not seeing that it could be so much better. It's like all the people who play the lottery without really getting that they have better odds of being struck by lightning or murdered than hitting the jackpot. We're screwing ourselves to maintain the parasitic lottery system known as copyright that gulls so many of us with these near hopeless and fake dreams of wealth.

You paint it black and white. "Strengthening the laws" or "increase exports from other areas" are hardly the only alternatives.

Re:Excellent (1)

Adayse (1983650) | more than 2 years ago | (#36240330)

Yes that is a valid argument but the moral is wrong. You want to slow the spread of ideas with copyright for your own benefit, limit the implementation of ideas for your own benefit. The cost for this high. Hardly noble goals.

Your ideas are no longer entirely your property after you share them, that should be the basis for IP laws. The more your idea or work is shared the smaller your stake in it becomes.

Re:Excellent (1)

sadboyzz (1190877) | more than 2 years ago | (#36241818)

and short of cheapening your own labor, I am not really sure how you do that.

Perhaps by being more productive per labor?

Re:Excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36242120)

You mean that we have to do actual useful stuff?

Re:Excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36242248)

Nevertheless, people have been beaten with copyright laws for years 'to protect the national economy'. I for one am sick of being beaten in the name of protecting someone elses income. If the national economy is going down the shitter, then it is. Beating locals isn't going to help that. Besides, the bulk of the money doesn't go to the state or federal governments, and certainly not to the common people. The bulk of the money goes to plutocrats, and they may not even live in the country, and *they* don't give a crap if the economy goes down the shitter, nor do they care or worry about State or Federal income, nor schools, roads, fire, police, etc. They live somewhere else and don't care. They likely aren't even aware. The DMCA/RIAA are in place to protect the plutocrats who own them. Its a one way valve of money from the common people, to them. It was designed that way. They paid a lot of money to get the politicians to pass these draconian laws, and they look at lobbying and providing full capitalization of election campaigns as an investment. I would not be surprised if they considered takedown notices as 'earned income'.

I'm not a fan of Doctorow (3, Insightful)

xclr8r (658786) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238018)

But his refusal of invitation was shortsighted; he can put together some decent arguments occasionally. When you get an audience to air your viewpoints you take it. If it was due to scheduling conflicts then my apologies but I do not believe that to be the case.

Re:I'm not a fan of Doctorow (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238332)

Refusing discussion if giving away your right to have one. It is stupid in every occasion.

Re:I'm not a fan of Doctorow (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#36242504)

Perhaps there are other reasons he refused..? I feel strongly on the subject, but I would refuse mostly because I would probably look and sound like an idiot and would do more damage to the cause than anything the other side could say.

(Not saying that Doctorow refused for the same reason I would, just that I would for that reason.)

Still, now that this first thing has been done, it is time to build on it.

There were people in the audience CHEERING. And these media industrialists heard it. They know now, for certain, there is an opposition that the public will cheer for. Should events like this repeat themselves, it will be a LOT harder for politicians to support more legislation in favor of media industrialists.

Why don't activists attend these things? (5, Insightful)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238024)

But [Barlow] accepted the invitation even as colleagues begged him not to go and activists like Cory Doctorow turned down invitations to the event, which was seen as an industry/government cabal bent on regulating the 'Net for its own ends. ... Barlow's biggest contribution to the e-G8 may have been the reminder that this illusion of calm is only possible in a setting where one screens out the dissenting voices—and that those voices are still raging outside.

Well no wonder they don't think anything is wrong. When activists turn down invitations, they'll assume they're in the right.

Re:Why don't activists attend these things? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36238082)

Some of these activist guys are getting on in years, and I'm not sure these pro-IP events are good for their blood pressure.

Re:Why don't activists attend these things? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36238098)

Why don't activists attend these things?

Because the political spin machine can twist "present in audience" to "endorsing their position"*. It's a dangerous political game, it looks like Barlow managed to make a positive impact but it could have gone far worse.

* It lends credibility that may be thoroughly undeserved especially if the presenters are all pro-position, just think of news stories that go something like "X presented their views on issue Y to an audience of <industry-group-Z> and <anti-industry-groups-W>". The "group W" may not have been convinced but the spin doesn't bother to make that clear.

Re:Why don't activists attend these things? (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238146)

Also, how is specifically inviting those "activists" to take part anything like "screening out dissenting voices"? Can't have it both ways.

Re:Why don't activists attend these things? (2)

David Chappell (671429) | more than 2 years ago | (#36239202)

Also, how is specifically inviting those "activists" to take part anything like "screening out dissenting voices"? Can't have it both ways.

Go back and read the last two paragraphs of the linked article. The French Culture Minister expected this debate to be calm. But, it did not turn out to be calm because they did not screen out dissenting voices.

La La LA I'm not listening (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238048)

Mitterand had commented that copyright debates had grown so calm now that everyone agreed upon the ground rules

It is surprisingly calm at home even when I have come back an hour later from the pub that I told my wife I would on a day when she was supposed to meet someone, as long as I stick my fingers in my ears and say "La La LA I'm not listening".

I think M Mitterand is doing the same thing.

Re:La La LA I'm not listening (1)

Gr33nJ3ll0 (1367543) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238676)

Which is a fine response until She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed starts throwing things, including your ass out in the street. :)

amusingly (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36238058)

the official eg8 site has taken down this exact section of the talk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0Nl2Xnmd5g

Re:amusingly (3, Interesting)

HaeMaker (221642) | more than 2 years ago | (#36239826)

Perhaps this is why Cory Doctorow refused to speak. The contract he had to sign was too draconian to make a difference, and he assumed (correctly?) that they would just censor him from the record.

Re:amusingly (1)

Cederic (9623) | more than 2 years ago | (#36241912)

The 90 seconds from 4m10 in that clip is a beautifully eloquent explanation of why the fight against draconian copyright legislation on the 'net is nothing to do with freeloading, piracy, "illegal" sharing.. it's to do with the future of the human race.

Fuck illegal file sharing. Give me a free internet.

So... Cory Doctorow turned down the eG8... (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238064)

I'm glad John Perry Barlow had the balls to be a dissenting voice in that echo chamber, but equally disappointed that Cory Doctorow thought that his inattendance was some kind of principled stand. We need more dissenting voices in the middle of regulatory circle jerks like these.

Re:So... Cory Doctorow turned down the eG8... (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238312)

My impression of Doctorow is that he's got so used to preaching to the choir from within the cloisters of BoingBoing that he has lost the stomach for listening to dissenting voices.

Rather what the eG8 is being accused of, now that I think about it.

Re:So... Cory Doctorow turned down the eG8... (1)

zooblethorpe (686757) | more than 2 years ago | (#36242220)

...within the cloisters of BoingBoing...

I agree with your overall point, but this particular turn of phrase got stuck in my head as some allusion to an odd religious porn flick.

Cheers,

rulers fail to mention world disarmament mandate (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36238094)

targets, long time, 'choice', jobs, all in the unspecified long term (decades) 'future'. all we want is a voice & a job, they say? (we want safe thriving babys & older folks all over the world) if everybody gets killed (by mistake, bad weather...), we'll still be ok? the chosen ones' lifeocidal weapons peddlers jobs are safe, as well as our last rights to remain silent. oppositions will be destroyed if they respond violently to being violently colonized & wind up like the genuine 'american' natives, who were subjected to inhuman treatment by the royals discovering colonizers, way back then, & even way before that.

disarm. please read the teepeeleaks etchings, please. no more even wetter wednesdays for us? thanks again. this is not a practice run.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGb7Bs1OdtI
'Three wars, millions suffering not 9/11 justice'

Ground rules (3, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238144)

1. We're all here to represent our corporate campaign donors, not our citizens.
2. There are no other rules.

Copyright needs to be killed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36238162)

... it has outlived it's usefulness and now is the largest impediment to innovation out there...

FTA: (1)

memnock (466995) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238286)

" 'Speech has to be free but movies cost money,' he [Jim Gianopulos of 20th Century Fox] said, adding that he hears plenty about the need for new business models but doesn't see any actual alternative business models that generate the cash to fund big-budget films."

I can't think of a big budget movie, at least recently, that was worth the budget. If this guy wants to be able to recoup his expenses and make a little profit, maybe he should start finding writers who don't need ridiculous budgets for crazy special effects with shitty stories.

Re:FTA: (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238540)

If this guy wants to be able to recoup his expenses and make a little profit, maybe he should start finding audiences who don't need ridiculous budgets for crazy special effects with shitty stories.

FTFY.

The "it's all crap" argument (1)

sjbe (173966) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238578)

I can't think of a big budget movie, at least recently, that was worth the budget.

Ahh yes, it's all crap. Why would anyone watch that schlock? Blah blah blah... Of course the fact that millions of people actually enjoyed some of those big budget movies and spent actual money to see them must mean they are all idiots who have no idea what interests them personally. Good thing we have you to tell us what is worth watching.

[/sarcasm]

If this guy wants to be able to recoup his expenses and make a little profit, maybe he should start finding writers who don't need ridiculous budgets for crazy special effects with shitty stories.

Since they are recouping their expenses and making more than a little profit already, maybe they understand their business better than you do. Speaking for myself, I have no problem spending a few dollars to see a movie that interests me. Yes, the representatives from the movie houses may be selfish greedy assholes but they can't be ignored either. We just need to make sure they don't put their interests ahead of the interests of society as a whole.

They've never made a profit in Hollywood (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36238874)

They've never made a profit in Hollywood.

And if piracy is killing the industry, how come they're making record turnover?

Because piracy has negligible effect on profiting from copyrighted works.

But it's damn expensive to police. You and me foot THAT bill. Do you like paying for that?

Re:The "it's all crap" argument (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#36239048)

millions of people actually enjoyed some of those big budget movies and spent actual money to see them

If millions of people actually wish to spend money on a film, the lack of copyright won't stop them.

Re:The "it's all crap" argument (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36240578)

I can't think of a big budget movie, at least recently, that was worth the budget.

Ahh yes, it's all crap. Why would anyone watch that schlock? Blah blah blah... Of course the fact that millions of people actually enjoyed some of those big budget movies and spent actual money to see them must mean they are all idiots who have no idea what interests them personally. Good thing we have you to tell us what is worth watching.

There was a song by the Jam with the line "The people want what the people get". That tends to be true for the majority of people who lap up whatever is served them by the big content providers.

Re:FTA: (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238958)

Avatar. Enormous budget and they made it back 10 fold. They didn't even need copyright protection to be profitable either, you can't copy a 3d imax projector.

Is "content" really king? (5, Insightful)

anegg (1390659) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238418)

An illuminating comment from one of the speakers quoted in the linked article was "We do not believe that you can remove 'content' from the Internet, and if you do this, what is there left? Basically, the Internet then is a set of empty pieces and boxes.” (Bertelsmann [Worldwide Media, I presume])

The Internet is much more than just a content delivery network for the recording industry and the news media. As with many constructs, however, I fear that it is viewed by all with a subjective POV and for those media corporations, their subjective POV is focused on only their understanding of the value of the Internet. The danger inherent in this subjectivity is that very powerful interests can bring about controls and restrictions that are, from their subjective POV, very reasonable. However, these same controls and restrictions may be extremely harmful to other interests and considered unreasonable by those with a different subjective POV. Perhaps the best manner in which to argue against controls and restrictions being sought by the tunnel-visioned but powerful is to illuminate the full range of communications made possible by the Internet and to show how the proposed controls and restrictions would unreasonably have harmful effects on important aspects of that full range of communications.

A separate, but related argument, is that the business opportunities that technology brings may also be taken away by newer technology. I'm thinking specifically here of the recording industries. Prior to the invention of audio and video recording technologies, there was no business in recording and selling the playback of audio and video "works of art" - all such works had to be performed by real-life artists every time the work was "sold" to an audience. Once a means to permanently store and playback recordings of these works existed, an industry formed to take advantage of it. I suspect that this industry directly destroyed the ability of many performance artists to make a living. Now new technology makes it possibly infeasible to spend a fortune making a recording of a work of art, because that recording can "escape" the confines within which it can be sold over and over again to recoup the initial investment. If true, live performances may make a comeback as big-budget productions dwindle. Why should the recording industry receive preferential treatment in order to maintain a business model that was created by technology and has perhaps now been destroyed by technology? Why shouldn't live performers regain their importance as the sun sets on the recording industry?

It seems to me that since copyright and patent protections are created by society in order to benefit society (and don't exist as any "natural right"), there has to be an argument about the bettering of society more so under one scheme than another. Is there an argument to be made that society will be worse off without big budget motion pictures and albums from major recording studios, and hence we need to protect their business model even though these protections may wreak havoc on the free expression of ideas within society (another benefit to society, which is enhanced by rather than threatened by the Internet)?

Re:Is "content" really king? (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 2 years ago | (#36239266)

I've been a big fan of live concerts since the 70's when I saw AC/DC play for free at the local footy oval. I'm not alone in my appreciation of live music, I recently went with my lady friend and 80,000 other people to a U2 concert. There were 3 such sold out concerts in my city with the cheapest tickets selling for ~$100 each. I have no idea what the profit margin is, but $70M+ in ticket sales over 3 nights is anything but a dead business model (for the artists).

Re:Is "content" really king? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36239360)

However, those performing artists are very few. Perhaps he was thinking of the grand orchestras of the past. Those performing artists have been relegated to sideline jobs and usually have to have primary jobs despite needing to practice their music for large amounts of time.

Hollywood and Broadway does help - the music created for movies and plays need to be performed, but how much do they really get paid for a blockbuster movie?

Re:Is "content" really king? (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#36239972)

An illuminating comment from one of the speakers quoted in the linked article was "We do not believe that you can remove 'content' from the Internet, and if you do this, what is there left? Basically, the Internet then is a set of empty pieces and boxes.â (Bertelsmann [Worldwide Media, I presume])

This is a particularly devious phrase, relying on ambiguity of what 'content' is. By the most general definition, sure the internet is nothing without content. But in this sense we are all content creators, and this right here is content.

What dude means is without big media content, the internet is nothing. So he makes a statement that everyone can agree to, then he changes the meaning of one of the words for the rest of his argument. Terribly, terribly disingenuous.

+5 Insightful (2)

zooblethorpe (686757) | more than 2 years ago | (#36242278)

What dude means is without big media content, the internet is nothing. So he makes a statement that everyone can agree to, then he changes the meaning of one of the words for the rest of his argument. Terribly, terribly disingenuous.

Or, to put it in plainer terms, he's lying through his teeth. The most gifted liars are good at this -- at telling their lies bald-facedly in plain sight, and constructing their lies to rely on twisted words, getting people to agree to things that are diametrically opposed to their own best interests.

Cheers,

What about Barlow's tagline? (2)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 2 years ago | (#36238962)

This is probably the first time I have ever seen John Perry Barlow mentioned, certainly on Slashdot if not on the entire web, without 'lyricist for the Grateful Dead' appended on as his title.

Is the influence of The Dead diminishing? Or was it simply an oversight on the part of the Slashdot editor.

We're grateful that he's.... well, nevermind.

Cory Doctorow Fails Again (1)

ideonexus (1257332) | more than 2 years ago | (#36240066)

Nice that the self-proclaimed leader of the intellectual copyright reform movement refused to attend this. I'm sure Doctorow is wasting no time figuring out how to spin Barlow's courage and integrity into something that's his own. Cory Doctorow loves to get out in front of other people's hard work, like Lawrence Lessig's, to push his own image as a intellectual leader, when, in reality, his failure to attend is just more evidence that the man is nothing but a lightweight with a popular blog.
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...