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!

USTR Publishes Rogue Sites List

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the for-all-your-dungeon-crawling-needs dept.

Piracy 82

bs0d3 writes "The U.S. Government has classified some of the largest websites on the Internet as examples of sites which sustain global piracy. The list released by the United States Trade Representative draws exclusively on input from rightsholders. It includes popular torrent sites such as The Pirate Bay, file-hosting service Megaupload, and Russia's leading social network VKontakte. VKontakte says that company's copyright problems are in the past after a deal was made with the USTR. Also, for the first time in many years, China's leading search engine Baidu has been removed from the list. However, China's widely used online consumer and business-oriented online shopping service Taobao remains listed. The full report can be viewed here. It has no legal implications whatsoever, but may be referred to by policy makers regarding future legislation (e.g. SOPA)."

cancel ×

82 comments

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

Not All Rightsholders (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464616)

I'm a rightsholder too. For example, I hold the rights to this post. But I wasn't included.

I think it's more correct to say that they drew input exclusively from large media cartel members, not from rightsholders in general.

If they had asked me, for example, I would have listed riaa.org and mpaa.org as rogue sites that sustain global piracy. I don't need evidence. I'm a rightsholder!

Re:Not All Rightsholders (5, Insightful)

OutSourcingIsTreason (734571) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464892)

Well of course you're right. The RIAA and MPAA lobbied for copyright term extension legislation which allowed them to pirate billions of dollars worth of what should rightfully be public domain music and movies.

Re:Not All Rightsholders (3, Interesting)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 2 years ago | (#38465026)

I don't like the term "rightsholder" in general. Doesn't that imply that there are some people out there with no rights? I'm a goddamned rightsholder too, I've got all kinds of rights. And yeah, they didn't ask me either.

People who do not have rights (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38465630)

Yes, plenty of people do not have rights -- like you and me. At least that is how the copyright lobbyists view things.

Re:Not All Rightsholders (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38466594)

I don't like the term "Rightsholder" either, it seems almost "Reich-like". I have rights and obviously you have too. We all have rights, and we are free to disagree if needed.

The problem has been rights for years, nobody has challenged that in a substantial way. That would cost money that the "poors" could not afford.

Better to ride it out to the end, Then shit will get really bad for everyone.

I could be more succinct, but I'm limited.

Re:Not All Rightsholders (1)

gmanterry (1141623) | more than 2 years ago | (#38466654)

I agree. Rightsholder is like Homeland Security. It just reeks of Natzi Germany. Come to think of it.... That's the way we're headed.

Why isn't Disney on the list? (4, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#38465282)

"The U.S. Government has classified some of the largest websites on the Internet as examples of sites which sustain global piracy."

Disney has pirated a lot from the brothers Grimm, Mark Twain, Hans Christian Anderson, etc. And, they continue to pirate our culture [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Not All Rightsholders (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38465712)

It said that the input came from rightsholders. "All of the input came from class X" does not mean "All of class X provided input".

Re:Not All Rightsholders (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38482474)

But it implies a fair distribution. It is like saying we have determined that all RIAA employees should be shot. All the input came from residents of the UK.
This statement might imply a fair proportion of the UK provided data and you might feel a bit mislead if all the data was actually collected from UK visitors to the pirate bay.

How about "License Holders"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38470338)

since what they hold are licenses to the exclusive use of given movies, songs, et cetera.

And? (2)

multiben (1916126) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464632)

Does anyone in the real world care about this list? Unless you're after government contracts I can't really see how business is likely to be affected by your inclusion on it.

Re:And? (5, Insightful)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38465462)

If you're trying to find pirated movies or software, it's got a nice list of sites you can go to.

Re:And? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38471166)

Please share your list..... netengr1863@yahoo.com - Thanks

Re:And? (5, Insightful)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#38465686)

Does anyone in the real world care about this list? Unless you're after government contracts I can't really see how business is likely to be affected by your inclusion on it.

Damned right they do! As TFA predicts, clueless policy makers will soon be citing it as "the official list of pirate sites...", if they are not already. "After all, teh list is on teh interwebs, so it must be true. Think of the children..." The same braid dead rationale behind SOPA is already in play here. Just because it does not (yet) carry the force of law, it's effect is very real.

Re:And? (2)

beowulfcluster (603942) | more than 2 years ago | (#38469360)

I care. I think this list is great! I've been looking for sites where I can find pirated material for quite a while now without success but within minutes of this list being published, I was filling up my bandwith with downloading torrents. A++, would read again.

ThePirateBay and Baidu...? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464644)

And not Google? or Bing?

filetype:torrent $SEARCH_TERM

Another biased & agenda laden publication from The United Corporations of America.

Re:ThePirateBay and Baidu...? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38465146)

Baidu used to blatantly offer pirated music to their users: https://www.google.com/search?q=baidu+pirated+music [google.com]

Another biased & agenda laden post from Anonymous Coward.

Re:ThePirateBay and Baidu...? (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#38469818)

"used to" being the key words there, right?

Re:ThePirateBay and Baidu...? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38465388)

Usually Google is the tool the author and the end 'consumer of piracy' use to find these sites. And once found the "consumer" just cuts out google and goes to the site directly. Google is a good "research tool" in this way.

Referencing the article, it is a very abbreviated list containing a variety of markets (albeit incomplete), but notoriously missing from the category of markets is the actual SOURCE(s) of the pirated content -- the sources that are producing the pirated material and also distributing it to the various markets (which are responsible for only mass distribution) listed in the document.

Re:ThePirateBay and Baidu...? (1)

KlomDark (6370) | more than 2 years ago | (#38466546)

Excellent point in that one: Who are "the sources that are producing the pirated material"?

Is it just an avalanche of a whole bunch of individuals who offer a file or two each, or is there some groups involved for profit, or power, or something?

Re:ThePirateBay and Baidu...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38469808)

None of the above. We are all just saving our movies and software to the cloud!

Re:ThePirateBay and Baidu...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38466636)

Don't forget Ebay.

Nice (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464724)

A few I have never tried thank you for the list.

Thanks (5, Funny)

MCROnline (1027312) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464734)

Thanks for naming all the popular sites I never knew about, keep up the good work, I tip my hat to the USTR :D By the way, if you close these sites, any chance you could do another report so I don't have to go to the fuss of looking for infringing content?

Re:Thanks (1)

jroc242 (1397083) | more than 2 years ago | (#38465122)

Just checking out some of the sites I should of known about. Thanks USTR!!

Re:Thanks (1)

Pi1grim (1956208) | more than 2 years ago | (#38469040)

It would also be nice if they provided the infridging content available for download on the USTR site. You know, just in case everyone wants to make sure the content is infringing.

An honor roll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464770)

Every site that made the list should feel proud of themselves for being useful enough to have attracted the attention of the copyright attack dog that is the USTR.

U.S. Trade Representative (5, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464784)

In case you're wondering, the current person filling the post is Ron Kirk [wikipedia.org] , appointed by Obama in 2009. Though it doesn't seem that USTR policy differs much under Republican versus Democratic administrations; sadly this one isn't a partisan issue because both parties are generally on the wrong side.

Re:U.S. Trade Representative (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38465006)

...because both parties are generally on the take.

FTFY.

Re:U.S. Trade Representative (0)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38465558)

Holy shit, the rare AC post worthy of moderation! Wish I had the points for you, sir (or madam).

Re:U.S. Trade Representative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38465306)

I like how you take a complicated and nuanced issue like copyright and break it down into "right" and "wrong". And then define "wrong" as "doesn't agree with me".

Re:U.S. Trade Representative (1)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 2 years ago | (#38470044)

Be fair. Credit where credit is due: that approach was pioneered by the MAFIAA.

Re:U.S. Trade Representative (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38465738)

this one isn't a distraction used to blind people because

FTFY. The corporate system and the cozy relationship between the US government and corporations affects every American citizen; only a small minority are affected by gay marriage or abortion.

Modchip.ca and Controlsource (4, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464802)

I love how these two sites made it into the list. They are claimed to be selling "circumvention devices and components used to circumvent technological protection measures on consoles". If they are openly selling these things, I am assuming it is legal in Canada to do so - showing a lovely attitude of "If we call it illegal, it is illegal everywhere in the entire world!" from American "rightholders".

Also, that must have been from the Rightholder Group Dept of Redundancy Right Holder Group.

Re:Modchip.ca and Controlsource (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38465132)

You are correct. In Canada it is legal to legally purchase a product (Wii, Xbox, Car) and proceed to modify your personal property as you see fit. Shocking, huh.

Re:Modchip.ca and Controlsource (3, Informative)

mirix (1649853) | more than 2 years ago | (#38467316)

Not for long, though. The corporate appeasement party finally got their majority, and will likely soon pass some fairly draconian measures, that they tried to pass in the past and could not.

Not entirely sure if it would apply to this, but I think it would. IIRC the gist of the bill seems fairly reasonable at first, some fair dealing exemptions and such, the right to transfer to different media, etc. It then goes on to state that if the media/device has DRM it is illegal to break it, therefore rendering all the rights given useless.

Re:Modchip.ca and Controlsource (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38467680)

Not for long, though. The corporate appeasement party finally got their majority, and will likely soon pass some fairly draconian measures, that they tried to pass in the past and could not.

I wish more Canadian voters felt like you and me. Canada died the day those shitbags got 39% of the vote and (by gaming a crappy electoral system) got a so-called "majority", just as their multinational owners had planned.

Re:Modchip.ca and Controlsource (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38465238)

I'm Canadian and actually am in the market for a modchip; thanks USTR! I will check that one out!

Re:Modchip.ca and Controlsource (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38465604)

I got a PS2 modchip from modchip.ca. I mostly just wanted it for imports though, but it was nice to not have to damage original game disks too.

Isn't anyone wondering? (4, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464844)

Isn't anyone wondering why we get to see lists like that, but no "shame" lists of various internet sellers of brand knockoffs? Ya know, the kind of asshats that keeps spamming /., amongst other sites, with their claims for cheap, cheap prices?

One really has to wonder why this list and not one of the real problem for economy, the commercial infringers. The damage is by some margin higher, and unlike that one, such a shame list, along with action against the operators of such sites, would not only make the economy proponents happy, I bet quite a few internet users would love to see less "cheap outlet" spam littering in their inbox and message boards.

Government really needs a few marketing goons...

Government marketing needs these guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38465408)

"Government really needs a few marketing goons..."

These guys are not on the list so they would excel at doing the job! Hell what I am saying they would have a better chance if they were on the list.

http://www.netgoons.com/category.php?cat=marketing

Re:Isn't anyone wondering? (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38465556)

Isn't anyone wondering why we get to see lists like that, but no "shame" lists of various internet sellers of brand knockoffs?

Selling Folex watches or Rolls-Canardly cars isn't illegal, so a website selling those doesn't qualify for the list. The list does include websites that sell copyright-infringing or trademark-infringing goods, as well as physical markets that do so.

Re:Isn't anyone wondering? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38467804)

Also I'm sure it will turn out that the US government is giving Vkontakte trouble to funnel more money to US-based Facebook (for the info as much as the tax money), not unlike the way they colluded with US-based credit card processors to squeeze European competition as revealed by Wikileaks.

not only (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | more than 2 years ago | (#38464874)

i have gone to pirate bay to download torrents of free/open source software, also i download "steal this film" which was only distributed via bit torrent. there primary use may be to break copyright but it is not its only use

Awesome! New sites to check out! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464882)

It's not often that I get to see my tax dollars being spent on something I can enjoy. Thanks, Uncle Sam!

Reclassification Time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464904)

How long do you think it will take for this list to become a go-to list for everyone online? (before they shut the sites down, that is...)

Re:Reclassification Time! (1)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38466760)

ahhh, the law of unintended consequences. Seems we should have a government agency for that too!

No actual profit sites listed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464962)

It's frustrating to me that they never seem to list the sites that appear legit on the surface, but are really fronts for charging money for actual copyrighted content. Take movieberry.com for instance. This is a Russian site that sells movie and TV downloads for real money. There's no way it's legal in USA terms, because of low prices, but also because of things like the certain films being from obvious bootleg source.

Why target torrent and P2P sites, and completely disregard sites like this which sell illegal content downloaded straight over HTTP?

Re:No actual profit sites listed! (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38465802)

Why target torrent and P2P sites, and completely disregard sites like this which sell illegal content downloaded straight over HTTP?

Because more people will go and try to find the free ones. If a free site has a hundred users and the paying one has two users, even though the paying one is technically doing "more illegal stuff" these lists will target the highest number of users first.

This isn't about stopping anyone breaking any laws or the like - this is about trying to stop access to content that Big Media is trying to sell.

The US government wish list (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38464984)

This is the wish list of the US government (a.k.a. MPAA/RIAA). Whether the list was created in the boardroom of the MPAA/RIAA or actually a government office is inconsequential, as they can be considered the same thing. The US government has been 'owned' by these private interests for at least two decades. However, in some countries (perhaps all of them), copyright laws may not hold these to be illegal. The US government *wants* their laws to apply everywhere, but in reality that just isn't the case. Its like the word 'piracy'. Piracy, by definition, is theft at sea. You have to be over salt water committing the crime of theft, in order to be a 'pirate'. Infringement is the use of someone else's licensed work without a license. Its not 'theft' (anywhere). American laws want to allow licensees infinite terms on licensed works. Internationally, no work should be given a monopoly for more than 15 years on any work. This is a fair and reasonable amount of time. I'm pressing for my government to limit copyrights and patents to 15 years, after which the become public domain (in perpetuity). Likewise, no 'licensed work' may be sold. Its a monopoly given by the government to a specific person (the creator of the work), not to someone who didn't create the work.

It is about time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38465052)

It's about time. There would be no RIAA or MPAA actions if there were not large site engaged in the support of "piracy".

You can buy the movies and music. And no ... if you do not choose to buy them, you are not entitled to them for free.

Re:It is about time (1)

jesseck (942036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38467088)

It's about time. There would be no RIAA or MPAA actions if there were not large site engaged in the support of "piracy".

John Doe isn't a large site, and that was all the RIAA and MPAA were after for years.

Thank you (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38465066)

For providing me with a neatly organized list of websites I ought to take a look at.

The word "piracy" is flawed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38465098)

Piracy in its traditional meaning, is a combination of breaking and entering, vandalism, and robbery with violence.
Copyright infringement is potentially depriving someone of something they may have potentially gained .

There's quite a big difference, so why use the same word?

Re:The word "piracy" is flawed (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38465278)

People don't know the difference, plus there is a lot of big money that has their shares in IP. They want to make IP infringement (which the closest "crime" non-commercial IP infringement can be alluded to is Beavis & Butthead sneaking into a theater to watch Twilight.) Commercial IP infringement (counterfeitting) is a different matter and has been well handled by laws we have had for centuries.

But, it isn't really about IP... it is about control and adding more revenue streams.

Re:The word "piracy" is flawed (1)

multiben (1916126) | more than 2 years ago | (#38465304)

Hmmm. Pedantic you are.

Legislate all you like... never going to work (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38465482)

I'm convinced that anything which legislates against common human behavior will never have the desired effect. This generalization is, of course, with exceptions and limitations (consider laws against theft and murder and the like) but largely holds true of many things. Laws against prostitution, for example has never stopped it and does little to even inhibit it. A law against smoking wouldn't help. There are countless other examples where civil behavior will simply always be a fact of human society. I hold that file and information sharing is one of these things and what's more, I hold we can't really be human without it. I know it sounds absurd, but what we are talking about is sharing human culture, heritage, art, expression... these are the things that make us human. Trying to package it and make it a "product" is okay within limits, but at some point, it becomes anti-human and I hold we have passed beyond that point quite some time ago.

McCarthy Re-Imagined (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38465544)

"The [Internet] is infested with [pirates]. I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the [United States Trade Representative] as being members of the [Pirate Party] and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy on the [Internet]." - Joseph McCarthy [wikipedia.org] , updated for the 21st Century

Has anyone with the USTR ever heard of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38465616)

The Streisand Effect?

Re:Has anyone with the USTR ever heard of... (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38465826)

Has anyone with the ISTR ever hear of... The Streisand Effect?

They have now.

Oh yes, lists of badness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38466114)

The favourite pasttime of US legislators and other policy wonks: Finding fault with everybody who isn't paying them at the moment. That anybody but them are still taking them seriously is saying very bad things indeed about the gullibility of mankind.

ip law is defunct (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#38466196)

the internet killed it

it is unenforceable law

millions of global media hungry technology savvy and most importantly POOR teenagers has made this so, and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do this short of destroying the internet

not that they won't try, and not that they understand or accept this, but maybe someone should scream into these ignorant fucking media dinosaur's ears until they understand that no amount of purchased congresscritter whores, hired tech hacks, or lawyer goons can stop this

game over morons. please don't destroy the most imporatnt media invention since the written word and the printing press in your disability to comprehend fucking reality

Re:ip law is defunct (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38467174)

I couldn't have said it better myself.... Well, punctuation could have helped.

Re:ip law is defunct (1, Interesting)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38467904)

there is absolutely nothing anyone can do this short of destroying the internet

And you are talking about the people who control a significant chunk of said internet.

The corollary of your discourse is that the powers-that-be will continue to be more diligent, more far reaching, and more determined in their efforts to track down and stop people who are engaging in these illegal activities.

I have seen many debates here on Slashdot, which usually focus on semantics of "stealing" versus "copyright infringement", but everyone agrees that it is illegal, regardless of what you call it. Might I suggest that if you don't want the authorities to get more draconian and controlling in packet inspection, working with ISPs, etc., then you should consider obeying the law?

game over morons. please don't destroy the most imporatnt media invention since the written word and the printing press

Then stop giving them a reason. If you don't want the enforcement agencies to kill the internet, then find another way to protest. Many posters here proclaim they pirate movies and music because it's not worth spending money on the dreck that is produced these days. I don't believe that; if it's so terrible, why is it magically worthwhile if you can get it for free?

Two wrongs don't make a right. If the stuff is so terrible, have some principles and don't watch the movies or listen to the music at all. Write letters. Buy indie music direct from the musician. Go to independent films. Read a book instead.

The only alternative explanation is what so many people posting here hasten to dispute: you're a cheapskate who doesn't want to pay for something, and you don't care that you're provoking the ruination of the freedom of the internet for everyone else.

Re:ip law is defunct (2)

Pi1grim (1956208) | more than 2 years ago | (#38469090)

Why don't we use the Army to stop shoplifting? Just shoot anyone suspected of shoplifting on the spot without due process, who needs that anyways? Oh, wait, I've got an even better idea — let's make up a nice act like Stop ShopLifting Act and just carpet bomb any mall, where shoplifting occurs. If you are against it — you are a shoplifter and should be shot on sight. Thank you, that is all.

And let me point out to you — RIAA and MPAA are not after the pirates, heck, they could not care less about those guys, they mostly provide free ads for the music and videos. What they are really scared about — is indie movies and music. With the Internet all the giant media companies could be bypassed and they would stop being the censor deciding (and profiting from it) who gets published and who doesn't. And those guys just cannot let that happen. They don't care about pirates, they care about censoring the Internet (which makes about as much sense as filtering the ocean).

What I expect to happen — as soon as they go agressively after torrents and pirates, then people will just move over to the places where free stuff is. If this legislation is approved, then we are to see the rise of i2p and similar networks. Probably even built into most popular torrent clients, depriving the corporations of the little control they had over Internet.

Re:ip law is defunct (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 2 years ago | (#38470264)

Then stop giving them a reason. If you don't want the enforcement agencies to kill the internet, then find another way to protest. [...] Two wrongs don't make a right.

I wonder, what's your take on marijuana laws? Because that substance cures the cancers that we are constantly growing inside our bodies. To extrapolate your position from your writing, I would say that it's something like "Stop healing yourself until the legislators allow you to", and I would respond that I'd rather they lock me up.

Re:ip law is defunct (1)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38470614)

It cures? I had not heard that; I was under the impression it relieved pain and other symptoms. Would you point me to a reputable study (NORML commentaries without references don't count) that says marijuana cures illnesses/sicknesses/diseases? Genuinely interested.

Re:ip law is defunct (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 2 years ago | (#38476052)

I was referred to "What if Cannabis Cured Cancer?" here, some time ago, and bought the DVD at Amazon. The DVD has references, and shows the scientists discussing their findings; it also discusses the history, both usage and prohibition, and the reasons for prohibition (biggest reason? It competed with trees, and William Randolph Hearst had just invested in a forest for his newspaper business, and wanted to eliminate "competition"). Here's a link; [amazon.com] right now it's $15. Enjoy!

Re:ip law is defunct (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38479358)

AFAIK, marijuana smoking can cause cancer, not heal it.

    On the other hand, it is probably one of the best natural pain relievers that I know of, especially for chronic pain like back pain.

Re:ip law is defunct (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#38474398)

"If you don't want the enforcement agencies to kill the internet, then find another way to protest."

the logic of the enforcer goon

"If you don't want me to hit you, don't wear that dress."

"If you don't want me to shoot protestors, accept your dictator."

"If you think the idea of the need for a media conglomerate to extract cash for distributing files is just antiquated pre-Internet nonsense, confine your activities to writing harshly worded letters to your congresscritter whore (already purchased by said antiquated conglomerate)."

how about no, and i share these files, and fuck you

how's that answer strike you, you goon?

Re:ip law is defunct (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 2 years ago | (#38476084)

It strikes me that you might benefit from some VSL3. From this and other writing, it sounds like there's a war going on inside your gut. Did you ever watch that video on money?

Re:ip law is defunct (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38477648)

Parent poster is an illegal immigrant, just to add some context to his lunatic raving.

Re:ip law is defunct (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38473434)

the internet killed it

it is unenforceable law...

Until they succeed in locking down internet access so that the experience is the same as watching cable tv.

eff... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38467010)

the govt

THANKS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38467474)

Nice when they publish a list and you learn some new sites!

Horrible Flash interface - posting proper links (2)

jginspace (678908) | more than 2 years ago | (#38468102)

Don't make me load Flash then have to click twice to allow it store date on my machine please - I just want to read a document.

Source is here: http://www.ustr.gov/node/6520 [ustr.gov] (pdf)

Here's some Pastebin goodness: http://pastebin.com/Q5WzwXq0 [pastebin.com]

So why are they referencing those sites? (1)

impaledsunset (1337701) | more than 2 years ago | (#38470180)

The list should include itself - it's linking to pirate sites!

Thank you USTR! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38469088)

Can we have the same list for porn, please?

Re:Thank you USTR! (1)

Pi1grim (1956208) | more than 2 years ago | (#38469118)

Only it it's pirated porn, but you can write your congressman, I'm sure he will happily share some of his own favourite sites.

Politcal Decision? (1)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | more than 2 years ago | (#38469500)

Can anyone who speaks Chinese to a check on how much counterfeit product and pirated copyrighted material is still being offered up on Baidu?

Reports from corrupt regimes don't matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38471164)

Everyone knows that the corrupt regime in Washington is taking bribes from the corporate interests who benefit from these ridiculous reports.
It is a very sad commentary on the state of democracy in the United States, when the greedy, corrupt, and powerful, are strong arming unpopular, and fascist legislation into existence. It does not however change the fact that the people did not want this legislation, and it has absolutely no democractic legitimacy.

Check for New 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>