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!

Leaked IFPI Report Details Anti-Piracy Strategy

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the filter-or-it-gets-the-hose-again dept.

Piracy 88

hypnosec writes "IFPI has inadvertently made available its own confidential internal report, penned by none other than IFPI's chief anti-piracy officer, which details its strategy against online piracy for major recording labels across the globe. The document, 30-pages long, talks about file sharing sites, torrents, cyberlockers, phishing attacks, expectations from Internet service providers, mp3 sites and a lot more. The document is a global view representation of IFPI's 'problems,' 'current and future threats,' and the industry's responses to them." A few tactics: shutting down music services, requiring file lockers filter uploads or be shut down (interesting, since the DMCA's one good provision is the safe harbor, and proactive filtering could mean losing that protection), lobbying for DNS blocking legislation, pressuring ISPs into extra-legally enforcing their will, disrupting payment processing for pirate sites through blacklists, and providing "training built around 'real world' experiences and challenges rather than focusing on theory" on copyright law to judges and legal bodies.

cancel ×

88 comments

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

Nothing nefarious to see here (3, Insightful)

jhoegl (638955) | about 2 years ago | (#40766423)

Move along.

Re:Nothing nefarious to see here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40768725)

... unless the document is real. Maybe it's a plant.

Hooray! Where do I get a copy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40766443)

Well where can we just download a copy of the 30 page report from then? Someone please post a link

Re:Hooray! Where do I get a copy? (-1, Offtopic)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | about 2 years ago | (#40767299)

It's easy - just start here [arstechnica.com] .

Kinda nice being a subscriber. Single-page articles, PDF/MOBI downloads for content, no ads (without adblock's assistance). Plus you can actively support what is [usually] quality journalism.

Re:Hooray! Where do I get a copy? (0)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | about 2 years ago | (#40767323)

d'oh. offtopic the above, someone? I thought I was replying to a question about Ars's mountain lion review article. :D

Re:Hooray! Where do I get a copy? (2, Informative)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 2 years ago | (#40767315)

I believe it's this PDF [ifpi.org] .

Re:Hooray! Where do I get a copy? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40768705)

I don't think it is that PDF. The one you link to doesn't show any of the data in the report.

The title of the leaked report appears to be "online_piracy_global_perspective_and_trends_mumith_ali .pdf" [sic]

It was hosted at the following location: www.ifpi-la.org/panama2012 [ifpi-la.org] which has been ripped down sharpish, but at the time of writing is still in Google's cache.

Anyone found the original yet?

Well... (4, Insightful)

BlastfireRS (2205212) | about 2 years ago | (#40766447)

I'm sure it'll make an interested read / skim, but it seems like this is all stuff we've known they've been doing for years.

Re:Well... (1)

russotto (537200) | about 2 years ago | (#40777327)

Yeah, but it provides a little bit of ammunition to the scoffers who claim the RIAA et al AREN'T comic-book style villians, twirling their mustachios and plotting to destroy the Internet.

This is who the gunman should have attacked (0, Troll)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40766489)

Instead of hurting a bunch of innocent people, invade the IFPI or RIAA or MPAA buildings and eliminate an annoying organization.

Re:This is who the gunman should have attacked (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40766527)

"cut one down, many more will appear!"

IFPI etc. all work for Hydra.

Re:This is who the gunman should have attacked (2)

BanHammor (2587175) | about 2 years ago | (#40766657)

Making them martyrs for the "good deed"?

Re:This is who the gunman should have attacked (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40766693)

Don't be a dick.

Re:This is who the gunman should have attacked (5, Insightful)

cpghost (719344) | about 2 years ago | (#40766947)

IFPI, RIAA or MPAA are just front ends of our Copyright Taliban. Attacking them is absolutely pointless, because nothing prevents the enemy from acting independently of the *AAs: everywhere there's a Court, they can sue; everywhere there's a politician, they can bribe; everywhere there's an ISP, they can blackmail; and everywhere there's a 85 years old granny without computer, they will sue nonetheless.

To fight this hydra, we need to change the laws that it crafted and that it keeps abusing. That's where the real fight ought to be: right into the field of politics. E.g. expose Obama and his president of vice Biden as the puppets of the MAFIAA (that they are), and do the same for the politicos of the other side where appropriate as well. Publicly shame them for their shameless buying into corporatocracy. It may not help much, but at least, that's where the fight belongs.

WRONG (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40767457)

if we kill 50 a day in each con try eventually they run out of people.
170 nations times 50 = 8500 a day times 365 = 3.1 million a year so in ten years there are like a LOT less execs running around....

be a neat video game me thinks....

Re:This is who the gunman should have attacked (1)

desdinova 216 (2000908) | about 2 years ago | (#40768051)

so who would be a candidate with a realistic chance of winning who are not puppets of the **AA?

Re:This is who the gunman should have attacked (2)

jodido (1052890) | about 2 years ago | (#40768731)

"It's better to vote for what you want, and not get it, than to vote for what you don't want, and get it"--Eugene V. Debs. In other words, drop the "realistic chance of winning" criterion or you will never ever ever get what you want. Also drop the idea that this issue is going to be settled by elections.

Re:This is who the gunman should have attacked (1)

rohan972 (880586) | about 2 years ago | (#40774029)

The idea of engaging in politics is to change who has a realistic chance of winning. If enough people are convinced to vote for a new candidate they can win. That might be hard, but it really is all it takes.

It's a war (4, Insightful)

Cryogenes (324121) | about 2 years ago | (#40766537)

and everything is fair in war (within the Geneva convention, of course).

In particular, every act of piracy, hacking and cracking is fair fighting against the media companies. Nobody should have any qualms about it.

Re:It's a war (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40766575)

someone should draft and distribute produce a 30 page pro-piracy manifesto in retort to this

Re:It's a war (2, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#40766889)

The geneva convention is a luxury those with overwhelming force can enjoy.

Re:It's a war (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40767421)

The geneva convention is a luxury those with overwhelming force can enjoy.

Well, that's okay. If you choose to not abide by the Geneva convention, the side with overwhelming force doesn't have to either. Those are the rules, and I expect you not to whine when it happens. Enjoy.

Re:It's a war (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40767657)

too late; the other side has already chosen not to play fair.

they took off the gloves first.

never forget that.

Re:It's a war (2)

CodeHxr (2471822) | about 2 years ago | (#40767297)

and everything is fair in war (within the Geneva convention, of course). In particular, every act of piracy, hacking and cracking is fair fighting against the media companies. Nobody should have any qualms about it.

This is an interesting concept... can an individual, or organization, declare "war" against a corporation and actively try to do them harm and/or destroy them as an organization? Nothing *illegal*, like murder or blackmail, obviously, but more like intentional character (business practice) assassination and such? It seems that "voting with one's dollars" is about as effective as "voting for elective office", given the number of sheeple. Man, I feel like I'm starting to turn into Dr. Horrible. "The status is not ... Quo."

Re:It's a war (2)

exilekg (2691321) | about 2 years ago | (#40768231)

This is an interesting concept... can an individual, or organization, declare "war" against a corporation and actively try to do them harm and/or destroy them as an organization?

Of course they can, big corporations do this regularly to the smaller corporations. But this "war" wouldn't fit any universally accepted definition of war so I don't know why would you want to declare anything, just do what you want to do. It is really interesting that a lot of people think that the best solution to any problem is to declare war to said problem, either real war or just "war".

Re:It's a war (1)

CodeHxr (2471822) | about 2 years ago | (#40769333)

Well, I didn't mean "war" in a literal sense unless you define war as trying to destroy your enemy. I guess my question was more aimed at consumers being able to band up and actively do something other than just boycott or "vote with dollars". I guess after thinking about it, you're right. I'm just tired of feeling like my piddly efforts mean nothing and that big giant behemoths can, pretty much, do whatever they like *and* get away with it.

Re:It's a war (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40771975)

>>>consumers able to band up and...

That's peaceful diplomacy.

I think the subject being discussed it war... aka no quarter, no prisoners, scorched earth, total annihilation. A corporation can't do harm when it ceases to exist. Metaphorically (financially) speaking. Destroy it legally, take its IP and turn it into public domain.

Re:It's a war (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40767649)

and everything is fair in war (within the Geneva convention, of course).

In particular, every act of piracy, hacking and cracking is fair fighting against the media companies. Nobody should have any qualms about it.

Perpetually rising gas prices? This is war! Everything is fair in war! Let's steal gas and burn down gas stations! Because, you know, everything is fair in war.

(Sarcasm, for those who couldn't detect it)

Re:It's a war (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40767709)

So if I go through your post history, I won't find any complaints about content owners pushing for SOPA-style legislation?

Keep giving me ideas! (3, Funny)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40766563)

Yay! More ways to download stuff. I was just finishing working my way through this [google.com] list and now I have 30 pages worth of new knowledge to assimilate. Keep it coming!

Re:Keep giving me ideas! (1)

Inda (580031) | about 2 years ago | (#40775029)

Woohoo!

This sharing of information thing they call the internet is wonderful.

So Annoying (5, Insightful)

carrier lost (222597) | about 2 years ago | (#40766667)

A friggin' laundry list of privacy invasion, rights violations and technology crippling.

All because a business model has become obsolete.

Just incomprehensible if you have even a faint grasp of technology, business and capitalism.

</grar>

My suggestion: The Digital Sanity Act [botaday.com]

(Not that it will make a difference...)

Re:So Annoying (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40766835)

They have the power, and you don't; so SUCK IT UP, BUTTERCUP!

Re:So Annoying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40766907)

Hey I know! Let's just wait for the powers-that-be to grow old and die off!

Surely their next-of-kin won't inherit any lucrative intellectual property. Surely their heirs would never be as greedy and soulless as their predecessors.

Re:So Annoying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40772035)

No... if they had the power, they wouldn't be acting this way. They are scared.

Remember, anything a corporation can do, you can do (as a corporation). Get hip. Learn how to create a corporation. It's easy.

We already have proof that they have pirated a song and refused to pay the legal owner. What else have they done? As they say, where there is smoke, there is fire.

Once you have your corporation, use their tactics to protect your IP. You do have IP to protect, don't you? If not, get busy and create it. Its even easier to create IP than to create a corp. Once you have the corp and the IP, go forth and protect.

Nobody said that the dinosaurs died quietly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40766857)

Actually, it was a violent, bloody, noisy mess.

But the dnosaurs did die.

Enough, damned stupid mouse! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40767015)

The stupid thing hit Submit before I checked my typing.

But the dnosaurs did die.

Naturally, I meant dinosaurs.

(I've gotta get me a smarter mouse!)

Dnosaur jokes. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40767223)

What do you call a gay dnosaur? Megasoreass.

What do you call a lesbian dnosaur? Lickalottapuss.

Re:Dnosaur jokes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40771711)

Whoever voted you down is a wet blanket. Posting so your comment still gets listed.

Re:So Annoying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40767057)

Just incomprehensible if you have even a faint grasp of technology, business and capitalism.

Even more incomprehensible if you have a faint grasp on communism, comrade.

You mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40767963)

you mean how the Chinese and other less democratic nations are bank rolling corporations to do all this?

communism truly might be preferred....

Re:You mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40768029)

If you think China is communist, the word might not mean what you think it means.

Re:So Annoying (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40767099)

What you are saying is that if we can't control the copying of content then it should not be produced?
If people steal your work then how are you suppose to make money?
Books, Music, Art, Photography, Movies, etc.

We need a real solution and so far it's policing people who steal content.

Re:So Annoying (5, Interesting)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#40767183)

We need a real solution and so far it's policing people who steal content.

No, it seems to be getting rid of due process, suing people en masse and presenting dubious evidence to the courts, invading everyone's privacy, forcing everyone (including non-infringers) to pay taxes for storage media, and using inflammatory terms to describe copyright infringement.

Clearly this is all working well.

Re:So Annoying (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#40768193)

The number of infringers is simply too vast to do anything to a significent number while still respecting due process and assumption of innocence. The only way to make it practical is to lower the burden of proof to the point that the process can be almost entirely automated.

Re:So Annoying (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#40768315)

The number of infringers is simply too vast to do anything to a significent number while still respecting due process and assumption of innocence.

Probably. But when the choices are between "infringe upon people's rights in exchange for security" and "do nothing," I'll pick the latter every time. Given that this is a rather insignificant issue, even more so.

Re:So Annoying (2)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#40768453)

That infringement is so endemic suggests some deeper lying pathology, if you ask me.

I would be interested in seeing a corellation chart between extensions of copyright, and prevalence of reported infringement.

Its just a hunch, but I'd almost bet money that they shadow each other very faithfully.

Re:So Annoying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40767549)

What you are saying is that if we can't control the copying of content then it should not be produced?

False, read the comment and link again.

We need a real solution and so far it's policing people who steal content.

Yes, we need a real solution and no, the current situation is not a solution. With every year that passes, and as more people become aware of what the internet is, Copyright becomes less effective and it's toll on fundamental human rights becomes all the more vivid. I posit that an advanced and civilized society would have been forced to abolish Copyright (or at least restrict it to being a regulation on businesses only) a decade ago as the cost to liberty became too much to bare. Instead I am treated to a truly ghastly state of affairs which is actually being supported by intelligent people!

Those who would give up essential liberties of his brothers, to be himself entertained, deserves not freedom, entertainment, nor friendship.

Re:So Annoying (2)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#40767771)

If the people who use your work don't value it enough to fund it voluntarily, then no it probably shouldn't be produced. Why should it?

Re:So Annoying (2)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about 2 years ago | (#40768563)

It's lucky that there's no stealing happening, just copyright infringement.

Re:So Annoying (4, Insightful)

carrier lost (222597) | about 2 years ago | (#40770241)

What you are saying is that if we can't control the copying of content then it should not be produced?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, "If you can't make money by releasing copies of your work, don't release copies."

This is not at all the same as "can't control copying" or "not be produced"

Limit your movies to theaters and your music to live performances if your DVDs and CDs are ending up on bittorrent

There are masnicktons of people giving stuff away AND making money. It just requires an innovative business plan.

Hollywood and the recording industry don't want to change business plans. They want governments to violate civil rights and cripple technology so that they can go on using their old business plans.

Re:So Annoying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40798717)

>"If you can't make money by releasing copies of your work, don't release copies."

Your wish is granted. Notice how the games industry is increasingly focused on releasing AAA titles that are rehashes that are guaranteed to sell, F2P games designed to lock the user into playing online, and DRM systems like Steam (that the chains wear lightly does not change what they are). Similar fates await other industries that make creative works.

Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.

Re:So Annoying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40771399)

Well, have a look at how much money Hollywood is actually worth...
Time Warner - $38 billion
Viacom - $29 billion
Dreamworks - $1.6 billion

Would probably be possible to get them to change their ways by having people, that are against the current business model, to buy some stock and vote against their current models.. At around $1000 per person we would only need about 69M people to buy those three..

Re:So Annoying (2)

rastoboy29 (807168) | about 2 years ago | (#40769587)

I like your Act, but I think it still gives them too much leeway to try to own us.

I think the expansion of fair use to cover all non-commercial copying is the only way to go (obviously, as my sig implies).

The various pirate parties are on board with that, as well.

Re:So Annoying (2)

carrier lost (222597) | about 2 years ago | (#40770103)

Just added your blog [expandfairuse.org] to my daily reads.

Looks good!

Re:So Annoying (1)

rastoboy29 (807168) | about 2 years ago | (#40804667)

Thanks!  I hope I don't bore you!

Provide training... (5, Insightful)

bool2 (1782642) | about 2 years ago | (#40766729)

To ensure the judges get the "right" result instead of focusing on theory.

.

Ok I'm paraphrasing quite liberally there but am I the only one that finds the kind of access these .*AA's have to the judiciary more than a little disturbing?

Or is this just the latest manifestation of the corporatocracy that's dominating western politics.

Re:Provide training... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40767713)

They've already got presidents and congressmen on their payrolls. Why *wouldn't* they go after the judicial branch next?

Re:Provide training... (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 years ago | (#40770809)

Next time they sue someone they should present this document to the judge, and then go on to point out that the "theory" is actually the key point that an IP address is basically worthless as evidence.

Where's the 30 pages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40766751)

30 page document or it didn't happen.

torrents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40766753)

you nerds just let me know if torrents are going to stop working.

Nothing New. (1)

SNAPPLEX (2691525) | about 2 years ago | (#40766863)

He should not have leaked their plans for security. But he didn't leak much top-secret classified information... Everybody knows this stuff already.

They forgot something (1)

dmacleod808 (729707) | about 2 years ago | (#40766873)

Usenet

Re:They forgot something (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40767033)

No, they didn't forget Usenet.

Its death has been predicted .... again.

Re:They forgot something (3, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40767065)

The ISPs stopped providing Usenet..... supposedly to cutoff child porn but now I'm wondering is RIAA was behind the scenes & just using the porn as a false flag to eliminate a piracy vehicle.

Re:They forgot something (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 2 years ago | (#40768265)

Of course. Child porn and terrorism are magic words that make people throw out all sense and logic. If they are brought up, it's almost certainly done as a means to accomplish something else. It'd be a total waste of shock value, otherwise.

Re:They forgot something (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#40768291)

Of course it wasn't about child porn. If it was, the ISPs could very easily just drop specific groups - besides, you don't see them cutting off the web, or email, or sftp, and I'm sure all those can be and have been used for child porn too. The real reason isn't hard to guess at: A good usenet service costs a significent amount to run, very nearly all the data it moves is piracy, and only a very tiny percentage of customers ever use it. Why spend so much for a feature used by a tiny niche, espicially when most of those are just using it for illegal activity anyway and copyright holders keep pestering about it? The child porn thing was nothing but an excuse. A flimsy excuse, but also a very effective one, because when a decision is justified as 'fighting child porn' it is not just difficult but even dangerous to speak against it in a public forum.

Re:They forgot something (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40773293)

I swear that some IFPI rep officially stated that he loved child porn because politicians instantly 'get it'...

Re:They forgot something (1)

Nyder (754090) | about 2 years ago | (#40767283)

Usenet

Well, most usenet servers take down DMCA requests.

UFC stuff is an example of it. usually gone on most the server 3ish hours after it's posted.

Oddly enough, that is pretty much the only thing I find like that.

Not that I download copyrighted materials, that would be illegal. (or Civil Disobedience.)

Where is it? (0)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#40766909)

Can anyone provide a link? Or do I have to wait until it starts appearing on pirate sites?

This is a ploy (1)

DeTech (2589785) | about 2 years ago | (#40766937)

Oh Noes, we has leak

Now people will tell us how this won't work

The Final Solution (0)

Seumas (6865) | about 2 years ago | (#40766981)

The final solution will be the full blown commercialization of the internet. I don't mean the attempt of every mommy-blogger to weasel a nickel out of their crappy five-reader blog by plastering it with a ton of advertisements from questionable places. I mean the shifting of legislation and entry point so that the internet becomes the next television. A medium in which only a very few own all the content and disseminate it to the mass of consumers. Back to the old ways, where you and I didn't have any voice and distribution went to the highest bidder.

I mean, it has already started years ago and we can see it every time we turn around. The massive content farms that own collectives of the largest sites on the internet (I'm thinking AOL, Vox, CBS, etc). When corporations and government finally come to a solution that they're all happy with, kids won't believe us when we tell them about a time when you could make your own website, own your own server, build your own business or service, and do it all without being a multi-national conglomerate or having to get certification, licensing, and some sort of government oversight.

Re:The Final Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40768053)

BUT
then we realize all that it does is make the current economy fail....and gut all this stupidity.

Hanging a few of them becoming mainstream meme (2, Interesting)

boorack (1345877) | about 2 years ago | (#40767481)

Slightly off-topic, yet still relevant as **AA/IFPI** is one of (many) similiar parts of out corporate world.

As Nouriel Roubini and few other well known commentators (economists) noticed, hanging a few bankers is rapidly becoming mainstream meme. Hanging a few **AA crooks, hanging few big-pharma crooks, hanging few Monsanto crooks etc. might follow soon. While it is an exaggeration, it correctly reflects popular mood of everyone feeling screwed by those corporate fucks and desire to properly prosecute and jail some more sociopatic corporate offenders.

What (still) didn't seep into mainstream is translating this popular mood into actions. People feel bad about being abused by corporations, yet they still watch murdoch-media crap, still buy overpriced corporate-crapola-music CDs, still buy in Wall-Mart, still invest their money into Wall-Street rigged game, still believe into "democrats vs republicans" lie and still do not leave home to protest against abuse (except for some OWS folks).

I hope that with 'hang a few bankers' meme some actionable change will come. When people will stop watching fox news en masse, stop buying crap from **AA crooks en masse, change habits and start buying, investing local, it will severly impair corporate grip on us. People know what's going on and going into action about this is the last step that finally might bring some change (as opposed to Obama's "home and change" lies) - come on folks, get up your lazy butts :)

Re:Hanging a few of them becoming mainstream meme (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40767817)

Nope, too far. Calling for the death of assholes is illegal for good reasons. I don't want them hung in anything other than a metaphorical sense. Accuse them of a crime, try them, find them guilty, take all their money, and put them in prison. THAT would suffice. No need for a lynch mob. (But a mob is still needed)

Also, while I detest most of the actions of Microsoft, Monsanto, RIAA, MPAA, and a dozen other corporate bastards, I'm perfectly happy with, say, my public utilities, Macdonalds, Fedex, the local baker down the street, Mazda, Amazon, and whoever make those cheap pens. Not everything they do is good, but they're a lot better then the first group.
I don't want to burn it all down and try to build something new in it's place. I don't want to do anything crazy like "seize the means of production". This whole capitalism thing works, usually. I just want the assholes who are detremental to society and try to twist the legal system to their own profit to go to jail.

Re:Hanging a few of them becoming mainstream meme (1)

neminem (561346) | about 2 years ago | (#40768777)

I would like to request that someone who has mod points (or several someones) please mod this post up.

Capitalism: the worst economic system, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. (Apologies for ruining your quote, Churchill.) That is, after all, the whole theory behind why capitalism works (except when, occasionally, the theory breaks down): that if a company can be proven to be screwing us over, we are free to attempt to bring it down by not frequenting it.

I personally don't have anything truly against Microsoft these days from an ethical perspective, incidentally, just a UI perspective. I would hate to lump it in with Monsanto or the RIAA. Meanwhile, I'd hate to lump in small local businesses (the baker down the street, say) with any of those others. I try my hardest to -support- local businesses, even if in this particular example, the baker most immediately down the street charges rather too much.

Re:Hanging a few of them becoming mainstream meme (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40767823)

Seven hells, "The Dark Knight Rises" sure did a great job of showing the end result of class warfare, didn't it?

So um. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40767841)

Can we kick these people off the planet yet?

I think we've all had enough of their antics.

how are "filters" supposed to work? (1)

kenorland (2691677) | about 2 years ago | (#40767907)

I bought all my music legally, much of it on CDs, some in iTunes. Then I converted it to MP3 and uploaded it to a bunch of "lockers". How are "filters" supposed to determine whether I legally own the music, i.e., whether I have the CD on my shelf?

Re:how are "filters" supposed to work? (2)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#40768539)

Don't be silly.

The media empires of the world do NOT want you cutting your own MP3 files *at all*.

The filter will work exactly as they intend, byt blocking all mp3 files that are not signed by their PKI private key.

This will force you to buy mp3s of songs you own the discs to, because you only have a license to listen to the contet on the discs, not to copy it. Your home-cut MP3s are "illegal" in their eyes.

Re:how are "filters" supposed to work? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40768593)

Why should they even try? What are you going to do, call the cops? Sue?

Re:how are "filters" supposed to work? (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about 2 years ago | (#40768619)

That brings to mind the "colour" of bits: http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 [sooke.bc.ca] . The concept of "legality" ultimately cannot be properly applied to bits and so attempts to censor based on legality are doomed to fail although I'm sure they'll manage to piss off a lot of people trying.

No big secrets (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#40768385)

They can already afford to do these stuff completely open.

Driving Customers Away (1)

kawabago (551139) | about 2 years ago | (#40768507)

I have stopped buying new music and new movies because of the activities of the rights holders. This will only drive more people away. I just wish the whole entertainment industry would dry up and go away, we'd all be a lot better off.

Music industry = greedy totalitarian mafia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40768969)

We need to act immediately to prevent these mafias from attacking our basic freedoms. The time has passed for standing back, and watching, as these corrupt and sleazy corporate interests, buy, blackmail, and bribe their way through our society. Personally, I have stopped buying any music or DVDs, since supporting the mafia is only giving the lowlife scum even more ammunition to attack the innocent. It is time to change copyright law fundementally. It is now being abused for little more than the monopolistic ends of some very greedy and corrupt parasites. For music, there is no longer any need for these companies to exist. Distribution can be done cheaply and directly. I don't want and of my money ending up in the pockets of these pirates. A 'pirate' is defined as a predatory plunderer. This is exactly what the big media business now are. If these companies had a resonable pricing and distribution model, then unauthorised copies would not be necessary. Who wants digital restriction management encumbered films, sold at a ridiculous price? Who want to pay money to businesses who corruptly influence our politicans to curtail our basic civil liberties. These people are responsible for introducing totalitarian/fascist legislation into our countries in the name of 'copyright enforcement', so that they can maintain their outmoded monopoly businesses, in a new age where they are in many cases irrelevent. I don't give my money to Nazis. Do you want to?

I have no moral qualms about "piracy" (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40769193)

There was a time where I didn't pirate anything. This wasn't because I ever had any moral qualms about it, NOBODY in the world has any right to tell me what large numbers I may or may not store on my computer. Rather, I didn't pirate because I recognized copyright as a useful component of a civilized society.

Now, however, I see that the big content producers are unwilling to reciprocate that civility. I will stop pirating when Big Content stops bribing members of government, subverting the justice system, and pressuring ISPs into spying on me. Big Content does not have a natural right to the large, entertaining numbers they have registered at the copyright office. Civilized behavior is a two way street, I'm sick of being suckered into walking it alone.

DNS blocking again? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 years ago | (#40769295)

Can someone explain that one to me? Isn't DNS blocking so trivial to get around that even legislators were realizing it was a stupid waste of time with SOPA/PIPA? My understanding was that changing one number in the settings to go to openDNS would prevent that from doing anything.
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>