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!

US Copyright Czar Cozied Up To Content Industry

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the just-some-folks-working-together dept.

Government 162

Nemesisghost writes "According to emails obtained via a Freedom of Information request, the U.S. Copyright Czar played an important role in brokering the deals between ISPs and copyright holders to punish subscribers whose IP addresses participated in copyright infringement. From the article: 'The records show the government clearly had a voice in the closed-door negotiations, though it was not a signatory to the historic accord, which isn’t an actual government policy. ... [T]he communications show that a wide range of officials — from Vice President Joe Biden’s deputy chief of staff Alan Hoffman, the Justice Department’s criminal chief Lanny Breuer to copyright czar Victoria Espinel — were in the loop well ahead of the accord’s unveiling. "These kind of backroom voluntary deals are quite scary, particularly because they are not subject to judicial review. I wanted to find out what role the White House has played in the negotiation, but unfortunately, the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) withheld key documents that would shed further light on it," Soghoian said when asked why he sought the documents.'"

cancel ×

162 comments

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

Sooooo (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37716726)

How's that hope and change working out for you?

Re:Sooooo (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37716812)

Well, we went from 8 years of "I can't believe this shit!" to "Change we could believe in." in much the same way like we believe in the tooth fairy or that hard work leads to wealth.

Re:Sooooo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37716854)

Can you translate that into English, please?

Re:Sooooo (3, Insightful)

spazdor (902907) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717404)

Hope and Change turned out to be a whole bunch of sitting around and not getting much done.

Since the previous situation was getting a fuck of a lot done but none of it any good , we can say that "Hope and Change" worked out just fine.

zero is greater than negative numbers, after all.

Re:Sooooo (3, Insightful)

capnkr (1153623) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717460)

And you are happy settling for that. Right?

I'm not.

Re:Sooooo (1, Interesting)

spazdor (902907) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717630)

It's a start. First cease to do evil, then endeavour to do good. We can't walk and crawl at the same time.

Re:Sooooo (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37718008)

Hope and Change turned out to be a whole bunch of sitting around and not getting much done.

It seems like a lot got done... if you were a contributor, like Solyndra.

Re:Sooooo (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#37716866)

Well you can continue to slack off. So the rest of us can get your job.
Hard work is part of the path that leads to wealth. But there isn't one simple rule for wealth. Hard Work is part of it, and an important part.

Re:Sooooo (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37717024)

It's become quite clear int he last few decades that privilege has much more to do with wealth than hard work. Hard work may secure you a living on the upper end of the middle class. A class that is rapidly getting less and less of the pie due to the actions of the privileged.

Hard work gets you a job with absolutely no security. Hard work gets you raises, which makes you a target for downsize because you make too much.

Privilege gets you a job running a few companies in to the ground, then later on a governorship and a two term presidency.

Re:Sooooo (1)

Meeni (1815694) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717372)

Heritage is a more important part of it. Especially cash heritage.

Re:Sooooo (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37717010)

How's that hope and change working out for you?

Its the political system to be rotten. Whoever you elect won't make a damn difference, not with the current system in place.
Want to change things ?
Make it illegal for corporations to "donate" money to political parties.
Make it illegal for campaign contributions.
Define a mechanism whereby political parties are financed by public money (fixed amount of money, so no more campaigns that cost billions of $).
Make it so that political parties all have equal visibility on public tv.
Strip the whole "personhood" thing from corporations.
If this doesn't work, guess its time to pick up your winchesters and pitchforks and burn down the white house and the capitol again.

congratulations (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37717046)

its time to pick up your winchesters and pitchforks and burn down the white house and the capitol again.

You've just made the uber-secret-invariant-no-fly-list. You'll never board a plane ever again (unless it's the one sending you on your Extraordinary Rendition.)

Re:congratulations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37717662)

its time to pick up your winchesters and pitchforks and burn down the white house and the capitol again.

You've just made the uber-secret-invariant-no-fly-list. You'll never board a plane ever again (unless it's the one sending you on your Extraordinary Rendition.)

Well then I'm glad to be living in a civilized country. ;)

Re:Sooooo (-1, Troll)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717184)

Much, much, much, much, much better than the alternative. Far from ideal, yes, but so much better than our only alternative as to not even merit discussion. We can only that some day soon the GOP will be dead and buried, and we can create a new party to the left of the Dems. I've long since abandoned the notion of the American system ever having more than two parties, so the only option is to kill the worse of the two and in doing so create room for one that might actually look out for us.

Re:Sooooo (1, Insightful)

capnkr (1153623) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717294)

create room for one that might actually look out for us.

Here's an idea:

Why not choose to look out for *yourself*, instead of sloughing off that responsibility onto others - whether it be individuals, or the government?

Sure, it ain't easy, but give it a shot, and you'll find that you have some self-respect afterwards, and gained some self-worth in the process. Creating a nanny state is *not* the answer.

Re:Sooooo (5, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717566)

Are you insane? How do you propose to look out for yourself against the whims of corporations if not through the government? If some banker decides to just straight up take all of your retirement savings for himself, what are you gonna do? If your insurance company decides that, after years of collecting premiums, they don't feel like paying out benefits when you're in trouble, what are you gonna do?

The Merciful God of the Market is a lie. Market forces won't stop $MEGACORP from screwing you over. You need to band together with your neighbors to defend yourself. And when you do, that is called "government".

Re:Sooooo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37717792)

You need to band together with your neighbors to defend yourself. And when you do, that is called "government".

I think the capitalist would say it's called "market power", and go on with their day.

The problem is that people are stupid goddamn animals. They don't do a very good job of organizing to act for their own benefit. Look at any product or vendor boycott you've ever seen. Nearly all failures. Look at Occupy Wallstreet. Failure. Look at the election of President Obama. Failure.

People, as a whole, have a poor sense of what's going on around them and are easily managed. The biggest lie of all is that there's any way to fight a system that's designed to maintain the status quo. That applies to our political system and our markets.

There's only one way to win, and it's to abandon all sense of decency and find a way, any way, to make yourself a part of the ruling elite. Lie, cheat and steal... it doesn't matter... just amass large sums of money and influence however you possibly can. You need to be ruthless.

Just don't challenge the system when you get there, or you'll be evicted.

Re:Sooooo (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37717928)

I should clarify. When I pointed out that people elected Obama as a failed attempt to act in their own best interest, I didn't mean to suggest that the other guy would have been a better choice.

To put it in a more current context, I think it's fair to say that either Obama or Perry would willingly hold you by the ankles and feed you head-first through a wood chipper if they thought it would guarantee them the presidency (and knew they wouldn't be caught).

Re:Sooooo (1)

uniquename72 (1169497) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717982)

Boy, you must have REALLY been against the PATRIOT ACT.

Re:Sooooo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37717388)

To the LEFT of Dems?? You are one scary SOB. They're teetering on the brink of socialism as it is! Much more left than that and the we'll have turned into the communist bastards we fought for decades!

Re:Sooooo (1)

dbet (1607261) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717906)

Wow, did you time travel here from the 60s? Next you'll be calling someone a pinko.

Socialism is not communism, and even the current Democrat Party is not as far to the left as it has been in the past.

Re:Sooooo (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37718040)

Same as Mission Accomplished.

No Surprise Here (5, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#37716728)

Many government officials go on to become lobbyists. She's just laying the ground work for her next (and much better paying) job.

Re:No Surprise Here (5, Insightful)

nicholas22 (1945330) | more than 2 years ago | (#37716752)

Change you can believe in right? I'm not a republican, or even American. But it's business as usual in Washington DC.

Re:No Surprise Here (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37716778)

From now on I'll keep in mind that any politician's slogan is likely to turn into a punch line.

Re:No Surprise Here (1)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717344)

Business as usual in Washington

I'm surprised that this information could be obtained in the first place. Due to the overwhelming "Me Too" culture in Washington this is par for the course. It wasn't always like this though.

Re:No Surprise Here (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717526)

Well, typically once in office, "Change you can believe in" quickly becomes "Dollars you can believe in". The other way of looking at it is that those in Washington DC are just following the Golden Rule: Whoever has the gold makes the rules.

Re:No Surprise Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37717178)

I'm not sure the next job would pay higher than the bribes she would appear to be getting now.

Re:No Surprise Here (2)

jandrese (485) | more than 2 years ago | (#37718142)

It's worse than that. Which industries are most interested in Copyright issues? The media? That's great, now who gets to decide which stores are going to get full blown 24 hours news coverage, and which are going to slip under the radar? This is why copyright reform is doomed, politicians need the media, and the media companies have only a few simple demands for them, guess what they are.

With newspapers dying out, it seems the only hope for independent journalism is the internet, but good luck getting anybody to take the internet seriously.

Sadly.. (2)

swinferno (1212408) | more than 2 years ago | (#37716732)

Politicians serving the industries instead of the public...news at 11

Re:Sadly.. (3)

marcroelofs (797176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717330)

That's why the Wikileaks cables were so important; they showed us that the US embassies around the world spend 75% of their energy in brokering for US big corp, instead of representing the people that pay their salaries.

This Administration (4, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#37716736)

And you're surprised by this why...? Because it's BHO instead of GWB? Get real!

Re:This Administration (1)

tgetzoya (827201) | more than 2 years ago | (#37716906)

And you're surprised by this why...? Because it's HBO instead of GWB? Get real!

FTFY

Re:This Administration (1)

xMrFishx (1956084) | more than 2 years ago | (#37716960)

It makes us laugh.

Corruption at the highest level (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37716744)

And people wonder why we are currently protesting in the streets over corporate greed and its manipulation of our nation's ideals?

Re:Corruption at the highest level (0)

redneckHippe (744945) | more than 2 years ago | (#37716804)

This

Re:Corruption at the highest level (2)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 2 years ago | (#37716952)

GREED:
Governments and Rich people Exploiting Everyone to Death

Re:Corruption at the highest level (2)

capnkr (1153623) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717386)

And people wonder why we are currently protesting in the streets over corporate greed and its manipulation of our nation's ideals, while steadfastly refusing to admit to ourselves that our man Obama is nothing more than a puppet perpetuating the very things we think are wrong in the system, or that his administration is just as bad as the one which went before. So we have a plan to Change things by holding signs which speak out against the actions of Obama's principal campaign donors, and getting the MM to show us at 5 and 11, in the Hope that maybe just maybe he will finally do those things he promised us he would do, but until now has just lied about [youtube.com] . Think it will work?

There, FTFY.

Re:Corruption at the highest level (4, Insightful)

Nickodeimus (1263214) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717524)

Ask the Egyptians. I believe the fall of their government this year was presaged by the 99% standing in a square in their capital city for weeks.

Re:Corruption at the highest level (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717752)

And people wonder why we are currently protesting in the streets over corporate greed and its manipulation of our nation's ideals, while steadfastly refusing to admit to ourselves that our man Obama is nothing more than a puppet perpetuating the very things we think are wrong in the system, or that his administration is just as bad as the one which went before. So we have a plan to Change things by holding signs which speak out against the actions of Obama's principal campaign donors, and getting the MM to show us at 5 and 11, in the Hope that maybe just maybe he will finally do those things he promised us he would do, but until now has just lied about [youtube.com] . Think it will work?

Congratulations for the perfect definition of the Liberal disease of Cognitive Dissonance.

Re:Corruption at the highest level (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#37718002)

Because cognitive dissonance is only found among liberals (which, I suspect, is everyone you disagree with)? Right..... As long as conservatives continue to put out this kind of moronic and juvenile nonsense, I'll keep voting for the at least well-intended evil.

But OWS was co-opted from day one (1, Informative)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717444)

and the message being spread "officially" is anything but what many think it is. Go read their home page and you will see demands that government do this, that, and that, to all sorts of parties. Yet you see no demands to get government off the backs of people - all they want is it on the backs of people they don't like.

I am all for people demonstrating their displeasure at the ballot box, we have a working democracy (republic) because we respect the system. It certainly needs an over haul in parts but not as being suggested under the guise of a popular protest.

Really, go read their site, the other day the first five or so WE WANT (I mean these guys come off as "WE ARE, THEREFOR YOU OWE US) were to use the oppressive power of government even more.

That doesn't fit what we are told they are truly marching for.

Re:But OWS was co-opted from day one (0)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717796)

Hope and Change, How is that working out?

Re:But OWS was co-opted from day one (1)

imric (6240) | more than 2 years ago | (#37718128)

That's right, you are for changeless hopelessness, forever and ever, world without end, eh 'Archangel'?

Re:Corruption at the highest level (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717730)

And people wonder why we are currently protesting in the streets over corporate greed and its manipulation of our nation's ideals?

You should be protesting right in front of The White House.

Re:Corruption at the highest level (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#37718016)

Unlike you, they understand where the actual economic and political decisions are made: Wall Street.

This is Fucked (2)

milbournosphere (1273186) | more than 2 years ago | (#37716776)

Excuse my language, but this is way messed up. When are we going to enact legislation that disallows this kind of crap while in office, and prevents officials from going from their current position to a lobbying position so quickly? The corruption is becoming so blatant that it makes me want to punch every congress-critter and official I see in the face.

Re:This is Fucked (5, Insightful)

tekrat (242117) | more than 2 years ago | (#37716948)

You're assuming that "we" can enact legislation. "We" cannot. We can only elect representatives that "we" hope will represent our interests.

But that's not the way it works anymore. Those guys that make legislation only seem to represent big corporate interests, because that's who's funding their re-election campaigns. Then they use that money to make TV commercials that lie to us, telling us to vote for him so he can represent us. Then, when we stupidly elect him, he goes and screws us, and enacts legislation for the interests that really got him re-elected, which is big money.

So "we" really have no voice in government at all. "We" cannot enact legislation, "we" are only subjects to the king and queen -- i.e. big companies.

Re:This is Fucked (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717284)

Well, perhaps this is a sign that "we" should stop voting for crooks and start running for office ourselves.

Re:This is Fucked (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717394)

The problem is that the average senatorial campaign costs around 7 million USD (I can dig up the citation if needed). Most people are living paycheck to paycheck, I consider myself luckier than most and I couldn't even drop the $1800 needed to start the paperwork. At some point somebody will try to crowdsource an election, that's about the only hope I have.

Re:This is Fucked (1)

Nickodeimus (1263214) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717576)

speaking of Fuck - Why the FUCK does it cost $1800 to start the paperwork for this. It should be a token filing fee of like $25. Citation needed?

Re:This is Fucked (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717914)

I wish I could find the document I printed out. It was a year ago when I was researching this, a declaration to run for partisan office for the state of Nevada not as a member of a major party ended up being just over $1,800. I feel like a bit of a tool for not being able to find the PDF and/or relocating the data online. It could have been the peyote as well.

Re:This is Fucked (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717794)

Money's not the only way to get on the ballot; at least, not in my district (I don't know the exact figure at the moment, but I think it only takes 3000 signatures to be placed on the ballot here). As a matter of fact, I intend to run against our incumbent with a campaign budget of approximately Zero; I plan on using public channels, such as NPR and the internet, to publicize my efforts.

I just won't be able to run any smear ads, which I have no intention of doing anyway. The way I see it, candidates should be elected based on their own platform and record, not the smack they talk on their opponents.

Just think, what would happen if droves of ordinary Americans started challenging these career criminals for their cushy positions of power?

Re:This is Fucked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37718100)

"We" are learning to find our own voice. Hence the Tea Party and OWS, which I am hoping will open a dialogue between the citizens and not the politicians - and it is happening already [dailykos.com] . Hence why corporations and big government are freaked out about our online freedom.

"The negotiation that matters isn't between radicals and traditionalists; instead it has to be with the citizens of the larger society, the only group who can legitimately decide how they want to live, given the new range of possibilities."
--Clay Shirky

Re:This is Fucked (3, Insightful)

Freddybear (1805256) | more than 2 years ago | (#37716968)

When? Never. The foxes will never vote themselves out of the job of guarding the chicken coop.

From the horses mouth (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37716800)

"Most transparent administration ever."

Re:From the horses mouth (1)

capnkr (1153623) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717414)

He never said that. [youtube.com] Right?

Re:From the horses mouth (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717778)

"Most transparent administration ever."

Yes, the President is truly an Empty Suit. Doesn't get more transparent than that.

I guess I'm not fully understanding the problem. (2)

Slyfox696 (2432554) | more than 2 years ago | (#37716806)

No sarcasm intended, but why is it a big deal when the US government is working with the two entities most closely related to the issue of US laws being violated?

Re:I guess I'm not fully understanding the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37716852)

Because the groupthink around here is that no one, from copyright holders to the government to ISPs, should do anything about people infringing copyright.

Re:I guess I'm not fully understanding the problem (2)

c0d3g33k (102699) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717334)

I'm not sure what this "groupthink" is you're speaking of, but that's a topic for another day.

I suppose the issue many have is that the "laws" you speak of, in a system putatively set up "of the people, by the people and for the people" do not seem to represent the interests of "the people". The OP describes a scenario in which "the people" aren't involved in the defining of the policies and laws that affect them, thus the resulting policies and laws are rather one-sided and tend to benefit a small group at the expense of "the people". That's what the big deal is about.

Re:I guess I'm not fully understanding the problem (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37717198)

Well, for me it is because:

1. The government is way over-invested in protecting copyrights. They have a role to play, but it should be limited to providing the venue for litigation and enforcement of rulings. I don't want to pay copyright-holder's cost-of-doing-business unless I've actually purchased their products - not with my tax dollars.
2. The ISPs previously had no involvement whatever in the copyright issue. That's how it should have stayed. I don't want to pay the copyright holder's cost-of-doing-business by paying my ISP more either.
3. The executive has completely forgotten that it represents ALL of us, not just its favorites. That includes the copyright czar. If she is involved, she should be representing *we the people*. I don't know how she can "broker a deal" between ISPs and major copyright holders (read: not even all of them...) and do a good job for the rest of us, too. I don't think that's possible.
4. This policy affects all of us, but we have no say because it's two multi-corporate interests meeting in secret with the executive branch (see #3 above) to form an agreement which will, in effect, be law.

Why is the executive involved at all? Because just like the copyright holders, it wants to shift the costs of enforcement (which it has taken upon itself, mind you) onto someone else. Hello, ISPs!

Re:I guess I'm not fully understanding the problem (2)

Nickodeimus (1263214) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717726)

Copyright infringement is not a criminal offense UNLESS it's done on a commercial scale. The government should not be involved in policing this illegal activity except when it is investigating commercial copyright infringement via the FBI. The definition of commercial copyright infringement is infringing for the purposes of personal gain, typically in a monetary fashion.

Therefore, the government should not be involved in individual copyright infringement at any level outside the judiciary, where civil matters are resolved.

also, its long been proven that stricter copyright, patent, and even trademark law leads to less innovation and fewer advances in technology and science.

Its pretty clear that the public interest is that technologies and sciences advance at a fairly rapid rate since they are the core of an expanding economy, along with sound banking, solid technical education, and good trade practices. The US fails on all fronts.

Re:I guess I'm not fully understanding the problem (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717822)

No sarcasm intended, but why is it a big deal when the US government is working with the two entities most closely related to the issue of US laws being violated?

That's like asking why the National Labor Relations Board is stacked with former union heads and works so closely with those unions. The other side, whether it be consumers or employers -- and even employees themselves -- have no seat at the table. Tell me now that's fair representation?

Well duh (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37716808)

When this guy was appointed, was there any doubt in anyone's mind that his SOLE responsibility would be to act as a shill for the big media industry? It's not like anyone believed for a second that he was EVER going to represent consumer interests or the rights of the general citizenry.

Sadly, that doesn't make him any different than the Congress or President. Hell, even the Supreme Court is ruling [nytimes.com] that corporations have a *right* to bribe as many public officials as they like. If you want to find someone representing the unwashed-masses-without-lobbyists, you'll have to turn to the EFF. The U.S. government is just a corporate subsidiary now.

Re:Well duh (2)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 2 years ago | (#37716912)

It is a chick, not a dude. Just FYI.

Re:Well duh (2)

Rehnberg (1618505) | more than 2 years ago | (#37716940)

It's the internet. Everyone is a man.

Re:Well duh (1)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 2 years ago | (#37716992)

She's a man baby!

Sorry, it's Friday. That's all I got.

Re:Well duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37717088)

The internet...
Where men are men, women are men, and kids are FBI agents.

Re:Well duh (2)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#37716972)

The public could protest, but they get their daily doses of fast food and tv [wikipedia.org]

Re:Well duh (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37717106)

The public could protest, but they get their daily doses of fast food and tv [wikipedia.org]

Panem et circenses, the Romans had it all figured it out 2000 years ago.

Re:Well duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37717200)

I had to scrounge for change to get my lunch today (not poor per se, just on the back end of the pay period and living paycheck to paycheck). Where's my fucking bread? Given this story, seems like they're trying to take away my circus too.

Don't worry, I am protesting. Occupy the World.

Re:Well duh (1)

wintercolby (1117427) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717258)

Thank you for that enlightening post! I would also point to the fact that Americans have a lot more circus than just TV, though. Many in the middle class can afford nice cars, homes, running water, electricity, cable TV and Internet, smart phones that have higher monthly costs than water and phone combined, and we still manage to spend significant chunks of money on eating out and other entertainment. Sure, I make 1/1000th of what the CEO's that are getting the huge bonuses are getting, but on the other side the bread and circus is no meager crumb and elephant show.

The public is indeed protesting, and the right people to do so are the ones that are there. It's the people that are being denied this bread and circus. The kids that went to college and can't find jobs in 9.5% unemployment, and the people who let their industry pass them by without continuous re-education in their field. It's also the people that were just unlucky enough to work for CEO's that made bad decisions with golden parachutes. What everyone is ignoring is that the current slow down is entirely oil based. The price of oil and fuel went up, our leaders were saying that if it got too high we'd see a double-dip recession, and that's what we have. When gas costs more than $2.50/gallon the world suffers. People spent their bread and circus money getting to work, and now the baker and lion tamer don't get paid.

Re:Well duh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37717448)

The kids that went to college and can't find jobs in 9.5% unemployment

Are you fucking kidding me? Some "kid" goes to college and thinks he never has to get his hands dirty doing real work, maybe after majoring in some bullshit field like journalism or political science or whatever? News Flash: we don't NEED nearly as many college graduates as we are churning out. If there was demand for them, they'd find jobs in their fields!

There are 10 kinds of people. (1)

drainbramage (588291) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717748)

Those that are fit for employment and those that aren't.
---
In my city you have to pay a head tax if anyone is hired and you have to fill out forms that indicate age/sex/race etc. so they can hang you later for [giving| not giving] somebody a job.

Re:Well duh (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717884)

"[The government] was not a signatory to the historic accord, which isn’t an actual government policy"

I know it's fun to bitch and moan, but try to at least read the whole summary first. A couple government officials who are involved in copyright were kept in the loop regarding private deals between the media companies and ISPs. We have no idea what their role really was. But Wired has an email in which an administration official says [correcting her horrific AOL-style spelling]:

"Could talk for 15 or so at 10:40, or this afternoon anytime between 3 and 5. BTW, I only check my gmail intermittently now, so it's much quicker to reach me at my OMB email."

She's willing to speak to them!? That's proves she's in the RIAA's pocket! Let's all assume the worst so that we have something to be angry about! The resulting release of chemicals in the brain makes us feel good!

Editor Fail (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 2 years ago | (#37716864)

Instead of accepting bad copy paste jobs directly from the articles you're linking to, how about doing some editing. Like, who the hell is Soghoian? That'd be something to establish in your blurb.

Re:Editor Fail (2)

Slyfox696 (2432554) | more than 2 years ago | (#37716894)

Like, who the hell is Soghoian? That'd be something to establish in your blurb.

"According to emails obtained via a Freedom of Information request....Soghoian said when asked why he sought the documents." Just a shot in the dark, but I'm going to guess he's the one who sought the documents. Could be wrong though...

Re:Editor Fail (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717876)

Yea but who is he? Some random jackoff, somebody in EPIC? the EFF?

Can anyone see the emails? (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 2 years ago | (#37716880)

Their page is being troublesome, can anyone view the actual emails and post the juicy bits? From the article it seems like the copyright czar is working with people concerned (and being dicks about) copyright. No real surprise there. So there has to be more.

#occupyhollywood (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37716888)

Time to expand the #occupy movement to Hollywood (actually, the RIAA and MPAA HQs are in Washington DC).

I'm SHOCKED! (2)

mrquagmire (2326560) | more than 2 years ago | (#37716946)

With all of the corporate money in politics, I am shocked that this is the way things work. And by "shocked" I mean "not surprised at all."

We really, really, really need to get lobbying and corporate money out of our government.

Obama Administration (2)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717146)

I long suspected the Obama Administration was the one behind the recent agreement between ISPs and the content industry. I'm sure ISPs would prefer to decide on their own which users it is best to keep and which it is best to drop, so the fact ISPs reached any kind of deal with the content industry was a puzzle with a missing piece. It turns out that missing piece was the US Copyright Czar.

I suspect the same thing about recent efforts to shut down domain names: You have Congress pushing for PROTECT IP, DHS shutting down allegedly infringing domains without a trial, and Verizon out of the blue and for no apparent reason deciding to incorporate policies similar to those of PROTECT IP which would better allow DHS to shut down domains it considers infringing. That is the sort of thing that suggests a coordinated effort rather than mere coincidence.

Re:Obama Administration (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717468)

s/Verizon/VeriSign

PS... (3, Insightful)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717546)

What bugs me the most about this is the fact that the government is basically throwing its weight around in order to regulate without having to legislate.

Government in bed with big business (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717152)

News at 11.

Occupy!

Why no one complains about Czars (2)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717302)

Why are people not up in arms about anyone being called a Czar in our government. A Czar is royalty. We should all be screaming about anyone in our government being declared royalty.

Re:Why no one complains about Czars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37717406)

I know, they could at least spell it correctly: "Tsar".

Re:Why no one complains about Czars (1)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717570)

Why are people not up in arms about anyone being called a Czar in our government. A Czar is royalty. We should all be screaming about anyone in our government being declared royalty.

Really? Because a bureaucrat in charge of a particular area is called a "Czar"? This isn't actually new.

I'm not commenting on her job performance, but pettiness over semantics like this is why the Rs and Ds can drive a wedge between Americans.

Re:Why no one complains about Czars (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717594)

Because it's just a bullshit Republican talking point? The so-called "Czars" are just nicknames for positions with long, tongue-tying titles. We've been using the term since the days of Nixon. It's only when the GOP decided they sooner burn down the country than let someone else lead it that they decided to start a fuss about the nicknames.

Re:Why no one complains about Czars (2)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717844)

Because it's just a bullshit Republican talking point? The so-called "Czars" are just nicknames for positions with long, tongue-tying titles. We've been using the term since the days of Nixon. It's only when the GOP decided they sooner burn down the country than let someone else lead it that they decided to start a fuss about the nicknames.

Not true at all. These unelected, unconfirmed, czars are being given unconstitutional powers never seen in any previous administration either Republican or Democratic.

Re:Why no one complains about Czars (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#37718058)

Bullshit. A czar by definition has no budget, which means he/she has no power. The only thing they can do is hold meetings, and move information around. That alone can be a lot of power - but it certainly isn't unconstitutional to have meetings.

transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37717454)

Yes, another shining example of transparency in our government. /sarcasm
...and yes, I am looking at both parties as I write this.

Hows that hopey changy working out for ya? (1)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717542)

"We will achieve our goal of making this administration the most open and transparent administration in history" ... "Americans have a right to know whose voices are being heard in the policymaking process," - President Obama

Re:Hows that hopey changy working out for ya? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37717950)

Well, to be fair, I haven't heard any examples of a more transparent administration and we do generally know whose voices are being heard.

Re:Hows that hopey changy working out for ya? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37718062)

"We will achieve our goal of making this administration the most open and transparent administration in history" ... "Americans have a right to know whose voices are being heard in the policymaking process," - President Obama

Looks like it's working out as advertised.

Statement: "We will achieve our goal of making this administration the most open and transparent administration in history"
Result: US Copyright Czar Cozied Up To Content Industry story on Slashdot.org
Analysis: The public sees what the administration did, therefore it is transparent.

Statement: "Americans have a right to know whose voices are being heard in the policymaking process,"
Result: US Copyright Czar Cozied Up To Content Industry story on Slashdot.org
Analysis: Americans know whose voices (the content industry) are being heard in the policymaking process.

Obama said you'd get to look, not that he would fix it. You got to see. What are you complaining about?

No a surprise (3, Informative)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717810)

Joe the moron Biden has been a copyright industry shill since his senate days. He as sponsored all kinds of draconian copyright bills [tinymixtapes.com] with the likes of Berman, Dodd, and Hatch, but Biden is the ring leader. Its disgusting really. Then there is Orin Hatch this moron wanted to install software on our computers to monitor us for copyright infringement and destroy our computers [theregister.co.uk] if the software thought we were infringing.

The problem is that no one cares and copyright is not an election issue so we are all screwed.

Re:No a surprise (1)

imric (6240) | more than 2 years ago | (#37718186)

Yup. Biden would have been reason enough to vote for someone other than Obama. Problem is, the alternative was - and if we were presented the same choice today - still is FAR worse - I'd rather not have the Right 'finish the job' - looting and destroying the economy of the West, while converting us into a theocratic state, thankyouverymuch.

This tarnishes the dignity of his royal personage (4, Funny)

Edmund Blackadder (559735) | more than 2 years ago | (#37717970)

I think this really tarnishes the dignity of his royal personage. A US Czar should not be personally involved in such shady deals. He should have sent one of his boyars to do it. Or at most a low level copyright Knyaz.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>