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!

Copyright Industry Calls For Broad Search Engine Controls

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the y'know-voluntary-like-taxes dept.

Government 421

The copyright battles going on right now are not all about SOPA, PIPA, or even the wider-reaching ACTA: suraj.sun snips thus from TorrentFreak: "At a behind-closed-doors meeting facilitated by the UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport, copyright holders have handed out a list of demands to Google, Bing and Yahoo. To curb the growing piracy problem, Hollywood and the major music labels want the search engines to de-list popular filesharing sites such as The Pirate Bay, and give higher ranking to authorized sites. ... If the copyright industry had their way, Google and other search engines would no longer link to sites such as The Pirate Bay and isoHunt. In a detailed proposal handed out during a meeting with Google, Yahoo and Bing, various copyright holders made their demands clear. The document, which describes a government-overlooked 'Voluntary Code of Practice' for search engines, was not intended for public consumption but the Open Rights Group obtained it through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request."

cancel ×

421 comments

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

2084 (5, Insightful)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855839)

We should also all install mandatory software that makes sure we don't infringe copyrights.

For the children, of course.

Re:2084 (4, Interesting)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855883)

They already tried that in Germany.

The publishers of school books wanted to lobby/buy themselves an agreement which requires a percentage of schools and teachers to install a software on their machines to ensure they don't have any unlicensed material on them.

Kinda like Origin, but enforced by the government.

Re:2084 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38856047)

People do its called a "Virus Scanner", or Malicious Software removal tool. They notifiy BIG BROTHER{British Royals} which files are on your computer.

And What's really cool is .. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38856365)

That next year computer using windows 7-8, and intel's E?{Remember: Intel bought McAfee} something processor will allow BIG BROTHER to be able to brick your computer if it contains software deem inappropriate. Cool Yes! Its a win win senario for the NeoCons, more felony charges to the people, more computers being replaced, more people fearfull of sharing software. Great huh? Now who says the NeoCons dont know about I.T.?

Do these people understand ANYTHING about IT? (5, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855845)

Why the hell do these morons keep tabling impossible and/or extremely EXPENSIVE (compute-wise) proposals without talking to someone who knows ANYTHING about IT and technology FIRST?

The last thing the world needs is ignorant luddites making the technology decisions for the global internet infrastructure.

Re:Do these people understand ANYTHING about IT? (5, Insightful)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855861)

If they new anything about the internet they would be making money from piracy instead of making stupid demands.

Re:Do these people understand ANYTHING about IT? (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855865)

Oh fuck, the grammar Nazi's are closing in.

Re:Do these people understand ANYTHING about IT? (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855895)

Heh, well if the worst they could pick apart was a typo, they must be in general agreement. Good enough! :D

Re:Do these people understand ANYTHING about IT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38855937)

Oh fuck, the grammar Nazi's are closing in.

I can't see anything grammatically wrong with your previous post. There's "new" instead of "knew" but that's a matter of spelling or perhaps semantics, not grammar.

Milking stones.? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38855873)

How does one get money from a group that wants everything for free? Piracy is the antimatter to commerce's matter. The two are opposites.

Re:Milking stones.? (5, Interesting)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855905)

Not at all. I "pirate" media to preview/prelisten before making a purchase decision. Were I not able to preview/prelisten, I'd buy NOTHING.

So "piracy" INCREASES their market share and sales in my case.

Re:Milking excuses? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38855971)

So by your argument were there is a preview, the the respective content never gets pirated? Or where the price is say a dollar ("It costs too much)? How about independents ("Stick it to the man")? Or when it get's distributed before it's even available to the retail market ("Oh copyright is too long") See whatever excuse you can come up for why piracy is OK, there's always someone out there who's going to make a liar out of you, and by association the rest.

Re:Milking excuses? (4, Interesting)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856043)

I don't give a fuck what anyone else does. I'm LEGALLY ENTITLED to preview media in Canada and to format-shift content I already own. The US is it's own nightmare, and as long as they never succeed in shoving their fucked-up system down Canada's throat, I could give a tinker's damn about what the US does to itself.

Re:Milking excuses? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38856071)

You may not "give a fuck" but copyright is worldwide and so is piracy. Thinking the entire issue is just a US issue is myopic in the extreme. The actions of "us" will apply to the "I".

Re:Milking excuses? (5, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856107)

The US system of "copyright" is NOT global, no matter what the US lobbyists would like to believe.

Keep your fucked up laws to yourself.

Re:Milking excuses? (4, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856127)

It is not a "myopic" opinion -- it is a recognition of the FACT that different nations have different copyright legislation. US law != Global Law, no matter WHAT the American people think about their role in the world.

It is AMERICA that is "myopic" in their presumption that they get to shove their dictatorship and police state down the throats of the international community.

Re:Milking excuses? (5, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856151)

The US and Canadian media lobby groups are doing their DAMNDEST to force Canada to take on legislation "imposed" by the US system, in direct violation of nearly a half century of precedent cases in Canada.

I, for one, will NOT stand by quietly and allow that to go unchallenged. I LIKE my copyright priveleges as a Canadian, and our media companies are NOT running in the red, so it seems to work for EVERYONE, no matter how much the luddites and dogs-in-a-manger bitch about how the "current system is broken."

The chicken little media companies have been claiming piracy was going to kill the music and movie industries since the 1970s with cassettes made of LPs. They have ZERO credibility in Canada left to their name.

Re:Milking excuses? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38856309)

Our media companies aren't running in the red, either. In fact, they are making record profits. And I think that is part of the problem. It gives them far too much money to spend on lobbyists like this. They need a fall guy when they finally stop having record profits to point to why, and to be able to say it isn't their fault. In short, they need a scapegoat. Piracy is a good one since it is impossible to reliably prove any effect from it at all.

Re:Milking excuses? (2)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856359)

On that point, we're in 100% agreement! :D They have WAY too much money to "invest" in lobbyists over the will of the people, never mind foreign governments and their citizens.

Re:Milking excuses? (1, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856063)

In short, the illegal activities of the few or the many does NOT mean I'm willing to budge an INCH on defending my established legal rights as a Canadian citizen to kiss American ass, or the asses of even Canadian media lobbyists.

Re:Milking excuses? (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856067)

*LOL* ".. my established legal rights as a Candian citizen to kiss American ass..."

Woot! That's a hilariously bad phrasing, but you know what I MEAN!

Re:Milking stones.? (3, Interesting)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855935)

MegaUpload seemed to do quite well and they paid for the content to be uploaded.

Re:Milking stones.? (5, Insightful)

jonwil (467024) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856193)

Not all pirates pirate simply because its free.

Plenty of pirates only pirate because they have no legal option to acquire the content. Sometimes its not available on DVD/Blu-Ray (or digital stream/download) in their country. Sometimes its a TV show that has yet to be picked up by any local TV network (or where the local network is 3 seasons
behind or something).

Sometimes its available on a streaming service but the streaming service has DRM (or restrictions) that means they cant watch it on a mobile device or on a TV. Or maybe its a sporting event they want to watch but cant because its blacked out on their local station.

Sometimes the only way to get the content is to spend huge sums of money on other content they dont want and have no interest in (this is common with various cable providers and premium channel packages)

I for one have been watching some History Channel documentaries on YouTube. Why? Because these documentaries are unavailable on DVD in any store in Australia and the only way to get the content legally is to pay over $60 per month to get Foxtel and the History Channel. And there is no gaurantee that any of the shows you want will be aired (and even if they are, you have to pay extra for a PVR or watch then when Foxtel decides to show them, not when you want)

If I could buy some of these documentaries on DVD at a reasonable price (or better yet, pay something even less to rent the DVD or streaming copy) I would do so. But the option is unavailable to me.

Re:Milking stones.? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38856449)

How about the fact, that in some countries 500 euros is a good monthly pay, while in others 2000 euros per months means one step above poor. Yet all the goods are priced the same. No, there is more, you see in a country like UK, if you don't like something you have the option of returning it, if it's scratched or damaged, you can get your money back or a replacement. You also have all those neat promotions. You might find it fantastic, but a lot of firms do bussiness that way, they don't bother buying in bulk from the producer, but buy a small quantity from the distributor, simply put because they can't afford to keep that much stock without selling it.
There are a lot of little things that prevent all goods from reaching all markets.
Take manga and anime for instance, until a few years ago, it was impossible to get them in the western countries, let alone translated. So, the option was piracy. Then there was the price, in Japan, Korea, they're dirt cheap, in the rest of the world they're bloody expensive, even with the translation and reprinting the cost isn't justified.

In the end, they're going to lose. You know why? Because anyone and everyone can hold in the palm of their hand, every book ever written in the world.

They always have the option (devil's advocacy) (1, Funny)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856491)

Plenty of pirates only pirate because they have no legal option to acquire the content.

They always have the option to move to a country where the works are published lawfully.

Sometimes its available on a streaming service but the streaming service has DRM (or restrictions) that means they cant watch it on a mobile device or on a TV.

They always have the option to buy the appropriate brand of computer or game console and watch it on that. And since when has a PC been able to tell whether its VGA, DVI, or HDMI output is headed to a "TV" as opposed to a "computer monitor"?

Or maybe its a sporting event they want to watch but cant because its blacked out on their local station.

They always have the option to buy tickets to watch the game in person.

at a reasonable price

What is reasonable to you is not always reasonable to the work's author.

Re:Milking stones.? (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856273)

Easy. Give people what they want and they will buy.

I cite my favorite example for this: Movie DVDs. There are a few shows, very select few, that I follow and like. Sadly, I cannot buy them. They are even commercially available, but I cannot get them. Why? Because they don't want to sell them to me because I happen to live in the wrong corner of the planet.

I have to wait until they are done with their atrocious dubbing and then I am probably, maybe, finally allowed to buy. The dubbed version, not the original one. Sure, in Spanish, German, French, Italian and a few other languages nobody knew or heard of, but rest assured the original English track will not be part of the fold. And even if I accepted a dubbing that butchers the jokes and twists the meaning around, I'd still have to accept being at the very least one season behind. Why? Why can't I simply buy the same DVDs that are sold to the US customers.

And if you're in the US and pretend this doesn't apply to you, you're obviously not into Anime.

Next, I prefer my movies on my movie server hard drive. Why? Because I want to access it with the flick of my remote instead of having to search the correct DVD and because I do not want to watch it on my tiny computer screen but instead on the big TV. Plus, I do not own a standalone DVD-player and I somehow fail to see the reason to get one when I have enough hardware able to read DVDs. This, though, is not acceptable it seems in the eyes of the content makers. I accept their concern with piracy and hence I ... well, it seems I have the choice of abstaining or copying. Draw your conclusions.

The point is, it ain't the price tag that keeps me from buying. 20 bucks for a movie I actually want to see isn't breaking my back. But I don't accept the inconvenience tied to it. I'd rather do without.

Re:Do these people understand ANYTHING about IT? (5, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855879)

1970's: We're going to collapse because of piracy by people making cassettes of their LP's!

1980's: We're going to collapse because of the threat of portable music players and people making cassettes of their CD's and LP's!

1990's: We're going to collapse because of the threat of people ripping CDs to MP3 players and computers!

2000's: We're going to collapse because of the threat of people sharing media online!

Fuck off, chicken little!

Re:Do these people understand ANYTHING about IT? (3, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856155)

Why the hell do these morons keep tabling impossible and/or extremely EXPENSIVE (compute-wise) proposals without talking to someone who knows ANYTHING about IT and technology FIRST?

2000's: We're going to collapse because of the threat of people sharing media online!

Fuck off, chicken little!

Chicken Little has learned that if it shouts, throws a tantrum and pays enough money to the lobbyists, then it gets what it wants. You get to sleep in the bed you make, and the bed that the US has made with Big Media has left it a very comfortable bed for Big Media. Big Media doesn't want to consult with IT people who will tell them that what they want can't be done realistically. They don't even care how it will affect anything else - they only look at what it will let them do. Why let someone who knows what they are talking about get in the way of that - lets face it, politicians have no clue technically - but they are willing to pass asinine laws and then see them fail, after all, they did what they promised to do.

Re:Do these people understand ANYTHING about IT? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856283)

Yeah, they've been promising the end of the world for a while now. I mean, nobody takes the Jehova's witnesses serious anymore, why the content industry?

Re:Do these people understand ANYTHING about IT? (5, Informative)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856473)

Your general sentiment is correct, but your timeline is slightly askew.

MP3s were primarily a concern of the 2000s. While it's true that the parent MPEG-1 format was around in the early 90s, and a few geeks were sharing MP3 files from the mid-90s onwards, it wasn't until the end of the decade (circa 1998) with those uselessly low-capacity early MP3 players that they were on the industry's radar. And they didn't really hit the public consciousness until Napster launched in mid-1999, i.e. when the 90s were almost over.

And the problem with MP3s AFAIK was *always* sharing and piracy. No-one cared about people ripping them to their computers in the 90s, because for most of the decade hard drives were barely big enough to hold a significant number of MP3s, and (e.g.) mid-90s PCs used most of their processing capacity just to play them back. As I said, nerd curiosity at that point.

You could probably combine the 70s and 80s; people were taping in the 70s, and the industry woke up to the threat [wikipedia.org] in the early 80s- I don't think the Walkman was itself a threat, beyond the fact that it made the cassette an even more popular format. (Remember that most Walkmans and the like couldn't even record themselves).

But you're right- the industry has made a fuss about this sort of thing before. They also did it with video recorders in the US in the early 80s, then realised that they could make lots of money selling prerecorded VHS tapes.

Ironically, I don't entirely disagree that piracy may be an issue, and possibly moreso than it was back then. I'm happy for people to make money and profit from their efforts in the creative industries (that is, if people want the results of such efforts).

This doesn't change the fact that the industry is- and always has been- a bunch of greedy bastards willing to screw over the working people they'd like to tell us are being hurt by piracy, and to use piracy as a useful indefinable excuse to cover up their own shortcomings (e.g. maybe people aren't paying money to watch their films because they're shallow, adolescent-oriented, unoriginal toss?) And while I might be in favour of reasonable copyright laws, that's certainly *not* not to the extent that those old, entrenched interests are pushing for draconian laws, not giving a toss about fairness or our civil liberties, just to preserve their own meal ticket.

Re:Do these people understand ANYTHING about IT? (5, Insightful)

isj (453011) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855887)

Why the hell do these morons keep tabling impossible and/or extremely EXPENSIVE (compute-wise) proposals

Because when they withdraw them and make slightly less impossible and expensive proposals they seem reasonable to the politicians?

Re:Do these people understand ANYTHING about IT? (5, Interesting)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855889)

Because they don't give a shit about the internet - in fact, they see it as competition. So the more ridiculous, expensive and useless things they can get the internet to waste money and resources on, the better.

Re:Do these people understand ANYTHING about IT? (5, Insightful)

El Torico (732160) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855897)

Simple, it's because they don't care how much it costs someone else.

Re:Do these people understand ANYTHING about IT? (3, Insightful)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855953)

Why the hell do these morons keep tabling impossible and/or extremely EXPENSIVE (compute-wise) proposals without talking to someone who knows ANYTHING about IT and technology FIRST?

They probably did, they just didn't like the answers they got.

That and they don't see figuring out how to do it or paying for it as their problem -- it's for the search engines to deal with.

Re:Do these people understand ANYTHING about IT? (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856207)

Why the hell do these morons keep tabling impossible and/or extremely EXPENSIVE (compute-wise) proposals without talking to someone who knows ANYTHING about IT and technology FIRST?

They probably did, they just didn't like the answers they got.

Probably not. They look for consultants who tell them what they want to hear. (I have some exposure in that industry, and it is very tough to get consultant jobs if you don't toe the party line.)

The one thing they do understand very, very well: (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38855985)

Don't overlook that they apparently believe that the best defence is to give as much offense as you can. Also, they do know how to play the lobbying game better than the entire tech industry combined and are quite willing to buy as much influence as they can.

Apple could buy up the entire rigamole from its petty cash, as could the other tech giants, even if some would have to team up to make it happen. Yet nobody is doing so. They, too, are in it for themselves, not for the societies they're rooted in.

Re:The one thing they do understand very, very wel (4, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856371)

...they do know how to play the lobbying game better than the entire tech industry combined and are quite willing to buy as much influence as they can.

I think Google's anti-SOPA stance may be the beginning of a shift in that "soft" stance of the IT industry. It's becoming quite clear that without spending money on lobbyists to tell the IT side of the story, government will CONTINUE to be ruled by ignorant luddites.

Re:Do these people understand ANYTHING about IT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38856145)

I think that we should be Ruling these luddites instead of making back alley deals with them, they are the consumers that use the internet and we are the technicians that make the internet work. In essence these people are our food, we are the top of the food chain. I for one think that on some subconscious level they realize this and realize that they are on their way out in an evolutionary sense and we are on our way in. Give it time and they will move aside in favor of us.

Voice of Reason

Re:Do these people understand ANYTHING about IT? (3, Interesting)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856267)

they are the consumers that use the internet and we are the technicians that make the internet work. In essence these people are our food, we are the top of the food chain

You can't be further from the mark there mate. Big Media isn't a consumer of the internet. Big Media's customers are consumers of the internet. Big media makes a movie and wants to sell it at the cinema, or on a Blu-Ray or DVD. They couldn't be happier if the entire internet vanished. Then they could go back to charging thirty bucks for a CD and fifteen bucks for a CD single. DVDs would be back up to full price and a Blu-Ray would probably be sixty or seventy dollars.

They won't move aside in favour of you. While I applaud your verve, you mistake your place on the chessboard. Until the chessboard changes, and politicians start working for their constituents, constituents start to look forward further then the next one or two pay cycles - "us" in your words will remain in the middle paying jobs, taking orders from bosses who you think you are smarter than, and not seeing the utopian freedom that you want.

Don't hate the player. Hate the game. Or better yet, learn to play the game better than those who keep beating you at it.

Re:Do these people understand ANYTHING about IT? (3, Informative)

Tom (822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856301)

Why the hell do these morons keep tabling impossible and/or extremely EXPENSIVE (compute-wise) proposals

It's a strategy. These guys have been playing politics far longer than any of us. Starting with something far beyond even your own maximum target is a good way to get almost everything you were really aiming for out of someone who is naive and aims for a compromise solution.

It even has a name, it's called the "door in the face" technique [alleydog.com] .

If you know it, you see it at works in politics pretty much all the time. In fact, I see it over here (Germany) so often that I'm beginning to wonder if they teach anything else in whatever newly elected representatives are getting in training.

Re:Do these people understand ANYTHING about IT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38856341)

I really don;t see what's so bad about wanting known infringers to be delisted. for starters, it's largely pointless, nobody uses Google, Yahoo or Bing to look for Warez, anybody who pirates, accesses a torrent tracker or another directly already.

Second, they're asking for the delisting of something that's illegal, Google doesn;t exactly list snuff or child porn sites either. Not that I'm putting piracy at the same level as the other two, only pointing out that other blatantly illegal stuff gets de-listed all the time. Why's it so bad to de-list p2p networks? This proposal doesn't even have anything technical about it.

The more this goes on, the more the opposition reads like they'll just use any excuse to get shit for free, I remember people making a huff about how SOPA is evil because it would theoretically make it illegal to play DRM'ed media with free software, ignoring completely that free software proponents tend to avoid DRM'ed media like the plague anyway (and are thusly unnaffected), or how it would kill wikipedia, despite wikipedia's policy of using only material that's free to use or in the public domain (meaning wiki would be unaffected). And then there's the whole tiff about how these things somehow kill free speech (pro tip: pirating isn't freedom of speech).

I'm can't tell anymore, if it's intentional fear mongering, or unintended idiocy.

Besides all this, there's completely ignoring the potential to use sopa, pipa and acta against big media, in that any legislation which makes it easier for the little player to defend their copyrights, makes them that much less dependent on, and more able to cut out the middle man. Of course, people only pretend that it's all about downing big media. When push comes to shove it's all about greedy fucks getting pissy at other greedy fucks who don't want to give shit away for free, with the artists suffering for it.

But go on, keep pretending like de-listing sites from search engines somehow teabags free speach to death and sodomizes the internet's mother, if that's what makes you feel better.

Re:Do these people understand ANYTHING about IT? (2)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856391)

I really don;t see what's so bad about wanting known infringers to be delisted

It's the same problem as SOPA -- using the laws of ONE nation to ENFORCE those laws over the objections and rights of the GLOBAL community.

The only way to avoid that would be to create a "google.us", similar to the way some companies have set up special divisions to cater to the unique needs of serving China's market. So google.us could implement such filtering, but you can NOT mandate that google.com filter the data for THE WORLD.

Re:Do these people understand ANYTHING about IT? (2)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856399)

Google, Bing, Yahoo, and the other search providers are part of the modern internet INFRASTRUCTURE, like it or not. That means they have to be managed as GLOBAL resources, not US-centric companies.

IT industry calls for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38855847)

... the copyright industry to go fuck itself.

An alternative proposal (5, Interesting)

tqft (619476) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855867)

The movie and music industry make material available globally and easily themselves or the governments of the world regulate their distribution chain.

Also the governments audit and oversee all their artist contracts and revenue streams.

See how much they like government regulation and scream about the idea.

Re:An alternative proposal (3, Interesting)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856247)

Here is a simpler proposal that would strike fear and loathing in their hearts, and requires no government oversight :

That content creators have a "moral right" to audit the books of those controlling their revenues. (Such rights are generally lacking, especially in the music business, where it is excluded by contract.) I have yet to meet a professional musician who wasn't convinced that their record label was stealing them blind, which, of course, they are, given that no musician can audit their books.

Re:An alternative proposal (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856417)

That is exactly what isn't wanted. Global distribution would first of all require a global distribution system, something nobody really wants to create. Second, it would undermine the local distribution channels, which faces a lot of rather severe resistance for obvious reasons, since these local distributors do not want to become obsolete (as much as they are in this time and age).

We're facing an international cartel of distributors that does not want to distribute globally since it would require a lot more infrastructure and very little benefit.

Better idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38855877)

How about making these legal websites (and their content) easy to use and affordable and then people will link to them, thus having a higher page rank.

Who will decide? (1)

Sla$hPot (1189603) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855881)

Can anybody control what you are looking for and how you chose to look for it?
I don't think so.

Governments and copyright (0)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855885)

Governments must be stopped and copyrights must be abolished [slashdot.org] . Is this getting clearer?

Re:Governments and copyright (4, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855913)

So you're proposing tossing out the GPL and every software license in the world because some media lobbyists are assholes? THINK, man, THINK!

Re:Governments and copyright (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855925)

GPL depends on copyright, yes, I am proposing to throw away all of the copyrights, patents and government power over people. I think it's a very good deal to get freedoms back.

As to software licenses - there are such things as contracts.

Re:Governments and copyright (3, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855983)

So you propose signing individual contracts to everyone who wants to use OSS software?

Keep thinking. You'll get there.

Re:Governments and copyright (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856217)

I didn't have to sign a thing to run my OpenBSD firewall.

Keep asking, you'll get there.

Re:Governments and copyright (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856431)

You're under the mistaken impression that I AGREE with the BSD license in anything other than concept. While I tip my hat to those who are willing to GIVE their software away, I have to EAT, so I chose the GPLv3 and LGPLv3 after YEARS of consideration.

You will NEVER convince me to release my work under a BSD, Mozilla, or Apache license, so don't waste your breath.

Re:Governments and copyright (4, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855999)

The problem with individual contracts, aside from the enforcement hassle and the sheer VOLUME of contracts any serious OSS project would have to sign is that you're throwing out a system that has good INTENTIONS because it's being abused by special interest lobbyists.

The solution is not anarchy; the solution is to FIX THE SYSTEM. And the best way to do that is to keep highlighting the damage the abusers are doing and to hound government to patch the holes in the legislation.

There's nothing wrong with the INTENT of the patent system, for example. The problem is that it's too expensive for individuals to file for patents, and companies are abusing the concept by patenting CONCEPTS and IDEAS like user interface gestures and the fact that a device is rectangular. There is nothing wrong with protecting actual INVENTIONS and PRODUCTS from theft, but the SCOPE of patents has become too broad and needs to be pulled back.

My pet peeve with patents right now is not software patents, but the idea that you can patent a genetic DISCOVERY of something that exists in nature just because you MIGHT have figured out how that fragment of the genome works. IT'S NOT AN INVENTION AND SHOULD NOT BE PATENTABLE!

Re:Governments and copyright (1)

webnut77 (1326189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856075)

Man, you said that so well. Thank you.

Re:Governments and copyright (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856229)

I don't propose that contracts should be signed for OSS software at all.

I am proposing that GPL model is irrelevant once all copyrights are abolished, which is the correct thing to do to regain freedom from government intervention in the system.

Copyright and copyleft are two sides of the same coin and both are wrong. OpenBSD is the model for Free software, AFAIC there would be more free software if there were no copyrights in the first place, never mind GPL, it wouldn't matter.

Re:Governments and copyright (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856407)

BSD is YOUR preferred license and model, not mine.

Re:Governments and copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38856007)

As to software licenses - there are such things as contracts.

Okay then, what's to prevent companies from slapping a EULA on everything they sell? The only thing worse than copyright are EULAs, which vary from license to license and tend to be far more restrictive than ordinary copyright.

Ultimately, the reason things are the way they are is that citizens and consumers don't really care enough about their rights to do anything. If people refused to buy games with Ubisoft's DRM, they'd stop using it. But clearly people are still buying Ubisoft games. They get what they paid for -- including the crappy parts.

Re:Governments and copyright (1)

aepurniet (995777) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855979)

when they push, you push back. when they dont get the message and take a hard line, you take a hard line too. the industry wants laws to be passed that will infringe on your freedom in order to secure their bottom line. are you willing to concede that?

Re:Governments and copyright (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38856003)

GPL is a tool to circumvent copyright. It's designed specifically to simulate the terms of a copyright free world.

Re:Governments and copyright (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856009)

The GPL is a lovely example of what I call "Systems Anarchy" -- using the rules of the system itself to force it to do something it's creators and managers did not intend and even OPPOSE. It's a tough game to play -- the systems of government and law are very complex and tangled, but it CAN be done.

Re:Governments and copyright (2)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856015)

And if you think the GPL is "anti copyright", you need to read what Rick actually says about the INTENTIONS of the GPL. It's subversive, not revolutionary.

Re:Governments and copyright (2)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856275)

I am not saying that I am in favor of this, but in software a world without copyright would in many ways be similar to a world where everything had a BSD license.

And, I would argue that the BSD license has been more important to the actual growth of open standards computing and the Internet than GPL, especially GPL v3.

Re:Governments and copyright (2)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856323)

The whole point of GPL is emulating what the world would be without copyrights -- as opposed to BSD which is basically "I'm a charity, take it and use or abuse, even against me". The only thing GPL gives you that you wouldn't get outright by abolishing copyright are comments in the source code. You can bet decompilers would sprout up overnight the moment you are actually allowed to use their output -- and then, it's a matter of tidying up what is essentially obfuscated code. And deobfuscation can be to some extent automated.

You'd have people rushing to analyze any such code that is of interest to someone, so pretty likely the result would be consumer protection laws granting everyone the equivalent of GPL. And even if not, there'd be no big difference.

At least (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38855893)

It's not as stupid as this. http://bit.ly/yLaFnY

opinion (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38855949)

Anyone else thinks this is more about censorship than about supposedly lost profits from piracy? Because I'm starting to think it's not about lost revenue, but really about creating things that have a side-effect of effectively censoring the Internet. The side-effect being the intended effect to begin with, not as an accidental consequence.

Anyone else notice that the captchas seem a bit too coincidental? Mine says, "detain".

Re:opinion (1)

Torvac (691504) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856421)

its about controling content. search engines provide alternatives.

Wow. have a look at these whores. (5, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855951)

These whores are basically wanting to censor for their own interest. No shame. No worries. No hesitation.

Modern carriage industry refusing to die and taking everyone hostage.

These need to be killed. Asap. first should be hollywood. else, we are never going to get 'cars' at this rate.

And, NO - as you can see, this has gotten out of hand - there is no way to make it work. Now, its either us - the cyber age, internet, 'the people', or them.

Re:Wow. have a look at these whores. (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856033)

Yeah, but it's worse. Unlike the buggy-whip makers and carriage builders, they've demonstrated since the 1970's that they're not going ANYWHERE, no matter how much they cry and scream about the money they're "losing", their revenues have and seem to still be going UP, not down.

One-sided deal it seems (1)

JBird (31996) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855967)

And what do Google and co. get out of it? Make big media pay, and pay big.

Re:One-sided deal it seems (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 2 years ago | (#38855989)

"That's a nice search engine you've got here. That would be a shame if some new law made it impossible to run"

Maybe (5, Interesting)

tqft (619476) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856195)

to prevent piracy Google & bing should drop all references to any all MPAA & RIAA "properties". No Elvis Presley, James Brown, Aretha Franklin, Justin Beiber or OneDirection. For a week. Then watch the xxAA's whine and complain - probably try and get an anti-trust action about it.

Re:Maybe (3, Insightful)

BeerCat (685972) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856251)

No quite as silly a proposal as you think. Torrents tend to be in 2 kinds - the crappy low quality, shot on a handheld camera, and the perfect, pristine, studio-released screener copy.

So, to prevent piracy, all studios that provide screener copies must be de-listed, as they clearly are actively promoting piracy.

And, by extension, any film ever made by Hollywood is based on a copyright work (even if it's only the screenplay), so they not only promote piracy, they actively produce copyright infringing works. Since Google, Bing et al are bigger than Hollywood, I'll side with the tech guys on this one.

Alternatives? (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856023)

What alternatives are there?

ITunes? Apple's been whining for a while about how low their cut per track is. Is it still DRM'd? Or did grow a pair and now serve up MP3s?
Netflix (and similar companies)? Nice model, shame they screwed a lot of their customers recently with their pricing. They also don't have every show/movie ever produced. Nor does P2P I'm sure, but it's closer than Netflix. Nor do they have the most recent shows/movies.

Re:Alternatives? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38856271)

What? No, the iTunes music files are not DRMed (but watermarked, though some consider that the same), but what has "growing a pair" to do with replacing perfectly good AAC files with shitty MP3 - which Apple thankfully haven't done?

''a behind-closed-doors meeting'' (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38856051)

Why was this done behind closed doors, what were they afraid of ? Alarm bells start to ring in my head as soon as I hear of people trying to keep something secret.

Re:''a behind-closed-doors meeting'' (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38856375)

Why was this done behind closed doors, what were they afraid of ?

Government offices, at least in the UK, are often poorly insulated and can be a bit chilly. They probably didn't want to catch a cold.

IT industry should retaliate with blatant censorsh (2)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856119)

Google and others should threaten to go to the FCC, FTC and others with a proposal: how about we provide you with software that can allow for total censorship of music and movies which are offensive to community standards? They can say "two can play at the using-a-government-as-a-weapon game" by creating software which can analyze radio broadcasts, cable TV content, etc. and provide end-to-end censorship of any content that violates community standards.

Not that I am particularly fond of censorship, but it would stick a boot up these industries' asses and REALLY garner a lot of public support. There are a lot of people who want these industries to restrain themselves and are getting sick of their overall behavior (such as this issue and offending reasonable sensibilities for profit).

crack cocaine (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38856125)

this is the crack cocaine of corruption

Against Google's Philosophy? (5, Interesting)

AzN_DJ (950218) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856129)

4. Democracy on the web works.
Google search works because it relies on the millions of individuals posting links on websites to help determine which other sites offer content of value. We assess the importance of every web page using more than 200 signals and a variety of techniques, including our patented PageRank algorithm, which analyzes which sites have been “voted” to be the best sources of information by other pages across the web. As the web gets bigger, this approach actually improves, as each new site is another point of information and another vote to be counted. In the same vein, we are active in open source software development, where innovation takes place through the collective effort of many programmers.

6. You can make money without doing evil
Advertising on Google is always clearly identified as a "Sponsored Link," so it does not compromise the integrity of our search results. We never manipulate rankings to put our partners higher in our search results and no one can buy better PageRank. Our users trust our objectivity and no short-term gain could ever justify breaching that trust.

Doesn't this proposal breach both these policies of Google?
http://www.google.com/about/corporate/company/tenthings.html

Soooo... they're trying to ban linking? (1)

Qubit (100461) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856163)

Let's say that Google de-lists a bunch of sites that the *AA's don't like. At some point a non-zero number of Internet users will not longer rely upon Google as their search engine (at least not for these materials), and will look to other search engines such as Bing, Yahoo!, or if they want to kick it old-school, HotBot, Askjeeves, or Altavista.

But the the *AA's go after search engines s_0 ... s_i (sorry, no better subscript), then these disaffected users will now go even further afield, to find sites from other search engines. Some might even go to a (hypothetical) website like HowToDownloadSomeCoolShitNotInTheSearchEngines.com [slashdot.org] that just has a static list of urls of music/video/goat/meme/whatever sharing sites.

At that point, the *AA's will say that they need to cleanse the HTDSCSNITSE's of the web of links to the prohibited sites, at which point we've basically gotten to urls that are "illegal" to link to (cf. 2600 DeCSS circa 2002).

F(uckity uck uck uck)

Re:Soooo... they're trying to ban linking? (2)

MurukeshM (1901690) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856245)

Remember when the compny behind the unholy Real Player went after a guy who linked to Real Alternative, claiming that he made that software? That's from a tech company. Do you expect that the tech-illiterates over at MafiAA would know any better?

And I thought MAFIAA was a joke... (1)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856173)

Given that Google already de-ranks and de-lists sites that do not meet its own ‘quality guidelines’ or otherwise violate its policies, we do not believe that search engines would face significant legal exposure if they were to [pay us protection money]

Now, I'm saying that you should really go and buy some insurance for your business from the insurer we're referring you to. Now, the decision is of course entirely up to you, and I'm not saying anything bad would necessarily happen if you were to refuse. But it would be terrible if, after refusing, something did happen, wouldn't it?

These megalomaniacs aren't even hiding it any more, are they? Though it was really very nice to see what hindsight will probably record as the Internet's first immune response when it bitchslapped sopa/pipa down. Hopefully the first of many. We just have to remember, its power of persuasion will fade through excessive use. The whole internet spawning "stop this evil bill" messages has to be very rare event.

Past peak copyright (3, Interesting)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856181)

We are past peak copyright, and they know it, and are desperate.

Self-healing dark net. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38856199)

After the kill of megavideo, a lot of people probably as gone back to downloading movies with bittorrent. If listing of torrent sites are removed, then people will start sharing bookmarks to these sites.

Rights? where are their responsibilities? (5, Interesting)

boojumbadger (949542) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856223)

What I want to know is when the politician are going to start legislating the con-committal responsibilities that go with these so called "rights." I was taught that being granted rights meant there were a whole range of responsibilities that went with them. Let us come up with a few for Copyright. 1. If a protected work is out of active circulation (new copies promoted for sale in a currently readable format) for 10 years by any distributer who has purchased the right then the copyright returns to the author. If the author (or his heirs or assigns) is unable to offer the work for sale for an additional 10 years the work falls into the public domain. 2. Should a corporation owning copyrights outright through works for hire be guilty of any serious infraction - environmental, securities, labor, etc. - such work are forfeit to the public domain. Settlement of such charges without any admission of guilt shall not be deemed sufficient to avoid the penalty. 3. Format changes must be updated for similar platforms. If the content is electronic then the producer cannot create a new format for the sole purpose of reselling the content. Product support for older formats must be maintained. Other idea or refinements?

Re:Rights? where are their responsibilities? (2)

the Dragonweaver (460267) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856419)

The original point of copyright is to keep a steady stream of inventiveness going for the public at large—with the idea that the works involved will eventually fall into the public domain and become part of our culture. The importance of copyright is illustrated by the time period immediately following the French Revolution, in which copyright was abolished... and the stream of new works dried up.

The other side of this is that copyrighted works are supposed to fall into the public domain, not be in copyright for eternity. So the corporations who don't want to lose hold of Mickey Mouse are in the wrong when they keep extending copyright. I'd add to your list the "corporation copyright" clause, wherein a corporation can keep copyright on a creation past the logical timeline (life of the author + enough time to raise any minors), BUT they have to pay to maintain it afterwards, on a geometric scale.

Truth be told, as a creator, I'd be fine with the original term of a couple decades plus one renewal. If I'm not creating more in that time period, I deserve what I get.

Re:Rights? where are their responsibilities? (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856433)

Refinement: copyright duration is 10 years - period. We need politicians with the balls to just fucking do this and tell the copyright cartel to fuck off. Oh, and a political system (particularly in the US) that isn't built around the requirement for politicians to take constant, large bribes (this is not hyperbole).

Leveling down (1)

CBravo (35450) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856269)

Why are the USians killing their own market (again) with this protectionism? Maybe it is necessary to feel extra pain before copyright is abolished.

Re:Leveling down (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38856385)

It's not going to be abolished. The American business sector sees its future not in production, but in intellectual property. Manufacturing, for example, costs for the raw materials, the labour to produce said item, transportation costs, insurance, all that sort of thing.

Know what's cheaper? Having a lawyer write a letter claiming "You infringed on something that we might own. Give us money, now."

This is the way of the future.

Internet companies should spend more on lobbying (1)

andre1s (1688402) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856339)

the music and movie industry spent 120 millions on lobbying, start spending money in DC get laws passed that protect things necessary for your business.

Reply I excepted from Google,Bing and Yahoo (5, Insightful)

kdemetter (965669) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856345)

"It is our policy , not to negotiate with terrorists".

To everyone... (0)

freeweaver (2548146) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856361)

who thought that the slippery slope argument had no merit,

Pricks!

Why is the document Anonymous (1)

jbrohan (1102957) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856403)

I looked through the document and could not fins an author.

why not!? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38856415)

i support this proposal.

if all these pirate sites are delisted from the search engines, they will simply move "underground" (whatever that could mean) and they would still be accessible (for example, someone posts a link on some unrelated website).

but now the big media companies wont be able to find these underground sites via the search engines EITHER, thus making their takedown requests even harder.

Controlling Piracy is only a means to the real end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38856455)

The red herring of Piracy is the medium through which the US. will repeal the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech). The Internet will be made "read only" in the interests of controlling piracy, which will also have the effect of stifling what little criticism of our monolithic government that exists now.

EPIC FAIL. This is open war. And we'll DESTROY you (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38856461)

I think we need to stop calling them a Mafia. Since that would be an insult to an actual Mafia. Because an actual Mafia would never be that goddamn stupid.

"Media" criminals: GO FUCK YOURSELVES!
You think you can win because you're so high on cocaine that you think you're some fucking Mafia now?
You can't even imagine the crazy shit we will do to you. Your conspiracy shit will look like a fuckin' child's birthday in comparison!
There will be child porn, bomb building plans, Al Qaeda contacts, bribery proof and copies of your worst competitors "media" all over your computers so fast, you will think you're in a fuckin' "Jupiter eye" class hurricane!
The (partially paid, partially our own people) cops will storm through your door in the middle of the night, drag you out like a dog, beat you to a bloody pulp, and the next thing you know will be the huge hairy asshole of Bubba Bonecrusher tightly wrapped around your shit-smeared tongue!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>